CAAF today granted review of these four issues in United States v. Pope, No. 10-0447/AF:

I.   WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING A GREEN DETOXIFICATION DRINK UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF SIMILAR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

II.  WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN HE FAILED TO GIVE A LIMITING INSTRUCTION THAT AN EXHIBIT WAS BEING ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.

III. WHETHER IT WAS PLAIN ERROR FOR THE MILITARY JUDGE TO ALLOW TRIAL COUNSEL TO ELICIT TESTIMONY ON APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO ALLOW TRIAL COUNSEL TO COMMENT ON THIS DURING HIS FINDINGS ARGUMENT.

IV.  WHETHER THE CONTESTED FINDINGS AND SENTENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE UNDER THE CUMULATIVE ERROR DOCTRINE.

AFCCA’s unpublished decision in the case is available hereUnited States v. Pope, No. S31578 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. March 8, 2010).

I find it quite impressive that CAAF has already granted review of a case decided on 8 March.  A1C Pope’s petition was filed on 4 May.

6 Responses to “CAAF grant”

  1. John Baker says:

    I just read the AFFCA opinion. What a goat rope this trial must have been!! Was everyone asleep during the trial? I think I’m going to use the unpublished opinion as a teaching tool as to why it is important to object.

  2. some af guy says:

    not available on westlaw. good indication the cca knew this out-processing did not go too well?

  3. Phil Cave says:

    John, concur.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Theories as to which particular issue CAAF is focusing on? (lack of 403 balancing on the record? right to remain silent? cumulative errors?)

  5. Dew_Process says:

    Does anyone know if an IAC issue was raised? How could you not object, e.g., about an “arrest” or that her brother was allegedly a drug dealer? Military Judges are more than referees, and Trial Counsel [and their SJA’s] need to protect the record.

    A simple urinalysis case gone bad.

  6. jerkmanistan says:

    better question – why is the CCA saying the brother stuff was OK? This is 1L criminal law.