I’m about to hit the road for the next 31 hours or so, so I’m doing an early update today.

Yesterday and today, CAAF granted review of four cases — three from the Air Force.  Here they are:

United States v. White, No. 10-0182/AF:

I.   WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AND VIOLATED APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY ERRONEOUSLY EXCLUDING AS IRRELEVANT APPELLANT’S PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED ARMY CREDENTIALING FORMS WHICH PROVIDED INSIGHT INTO APPELLANT’S INTENT COMPLETING SUCH CREDENTIALING FORMS.

II.  WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AND DENIED APPELLANT DUE PROCESS AND HER RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL BY ERRONEOUSLY EXCLUDING RELEVANT LAY OPINIONS OF QUESTION D ON SECTION VIII OF AF FORM (FM) 1540.

United States v. Staton, No. 10-0237/AF:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO KILL OR INJURE THE ORIGINAL TRIAL COUNSEL.

United States v. Luke, No. 05-0157/NA:

I.   WHETHER THE RESULTS OF APPELLANT’S TRIAL ARE NOT RELIABLE IN LIGHT OF NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.

II.  WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE FOUND THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE EVIDENCE PREPARED FOR USE ON RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF A GOVERNMENT WITNESS.

III. WHETHER APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY THE UNTIMELY POST-TRIAL PROCESSING AND APPELLATE REVIEW OF HIS COURT-MARTIAL.

United States v. Gooch, No. 10-0251/AF:

I.   WHETHER THE PROCESS FOR SELECTING PANEL MEMBERS FOR APPELLANT’S GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL WAS IMPROPER IN LIGHT OF ARTICLE 25, UCMJ, AND UNITED STATES v. BARTLETT, 66 M.J. 426 (C.A.A.F. 2008).

II.  WHETHER APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN, AFTER THE MILITARY JUDGE LEARNED DURING SENTENCING DELIBERATIONS THAT THE MEMBERS HAD IMPROPERLY RECONSIDERED A FINDING OF NOT GUILTY TO SPECIFICATION TWO OF THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE, AND AFTER STATING THAT HE WAS INCLINED TO DISMISS THE SPECIFICATION IN ORDER TO CURE THE ERROR, APPELLANT’S TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL URGED THE MILITARY JUDGE NOT TO DISMISS THE SPECIFICATION.

III. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF “WAIVER” AND “INVITED ERROR” BARRED CONSIDERATION OF APPELLANT’S CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

8 Responses to “Grants galore”

  1. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Not surprising to see Luke headed back up to CAAF. If I recall correctly, there’s a jurisdiction issue buried in that case somewhere. Ah yes, Judge Erdmann’s dissent from CAAF’s last look at this case, 63 MJ 60 (2006).

    Issue I will be interesting as well, since it deals with the problems at USACIL from a few years ago.

  2. Socrates says:

    United States v. Staton: APPELLANT MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO KILL OR INJURE THE ORIGINAL TRIAL COUNSEL. Really? Did TC try to leave active duty without Staton’s consent?

  3. NARDISH says:

    Nice to see Caaf agreed to hear Luke, this case yearns for a new trial.

    Cloudless, jursidiction issue?

    I thought this was DNA, Brady violation, untimely review, Trial by ambush and 412 vs 403 issues in this case?.

    Please enlighten us?

  4. Valentine says:

    I still get a headcahe over Luke’s case did alot of work in my apellate shop days on this mosntrosity. The only way this case comes out with justice served is to start over with a new trial.

    Too many issues in what was essentially a credibility contest where pre-emptive allegations were made after the alleged victim was found by the accused to be engaging in an illicit affair aboard ship.

    During trial accused found not guilty of most charges to include sodomy only to be found guilty of one specification of indecent assault which presumeably was a result of DNA testing, which years later turns out to be suspect at best.

    This will be interesting from CAAF since judge Erdman dissented in the first go around at caaf as it relates to the DNA issue and request for a new trial.

  5. Another Luke alum says:

    Valentine,

    It’s been about 10 years since the first trial…there’s no way a new trial could possibly be fair. The only justice here would be dismissal with prejudice.

  6. ReplyMan says:

    No, just tried to run over TC with his vehicle at a high rate of speed – at least that was the former TCs testimony

  7. Rattle says:

    well Another, I beleive the system while slow work most of the time, so I beleive caaf will get it right.

  8. Cheap Seats says:

    So I was thinking of heading to Long Island for the outreach argument. I see US v Gooch is being argued. I just read the AFCCA opinion. Looksl like CAAF granted the Grostefon argument…nice!