Here are the issues in the six cases in which CAAF heard oral argument this term but hasn’t yet issued an opinion:

1.  United States v. Nerad, No. 09-5006/AF: 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN NULLIFYING APPELLEE’S FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY SUFFICIENT CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.”  [Certified issue]

2.  United States v. Diaz, No. 09-0535/NA:

I.   WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS MISREAD THE SCIENTER AND NATIONAL SECURITY ELEMENTS OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT.

II.  WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN REJECTING AS IRREGULAR APPELLANT’S PROFFERED GUILTY PLEA TO A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 133.

III. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AN ACCUSED ACTED, INCLUDING HIS MOTIVE, IS RELEVANT TO A CHARGE UNDER ARTICLE 133.

3.  United States v. Lloyd, No. 09-0775/AF:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION WHEN SHE DENIED THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR AN EXPERT CONSULTANT IN THE FIELD OF BLOOD SPATTER.

4.  United States v. Contreras, No. 09-0754/AF: 

WHETHER THE HOUSEBREAKING CHARGE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL OFFENSE, INDECENT ACTS WITH ANOTHER UNDER ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, IS A PURELY MILITARY OFFENSE.

5.  United States v. Mullins, No. 07-0401/NA:

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IMPERMISSIBLE IN THE MILITARY JUDGE ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE LIE DETECTOR TESTIMONY IN VIOLATION OF MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 702.

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT DENIED APPELLANT DUE PROCESS WHEN IT DENIED HIM RELIEF DUE TO EXCESSIVE POST-TRIAL PROCESSING DELAY AND DENIED HIS SUPPLEMENTAL ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.

6.  United States v. Graner, No. 09-0432/AR:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF THE ACCUSED BY FAILING TO ORDER DISCLOSURE OF MEMOS THAT SET OUT APPROVED “ENHANCED INTERROGATION TACTICS” FOR HANDLING DETAINEES IN UNITED STATES CUSTODY. 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY EXCLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF MAJOR PONCE; THE E-MAIL AUTHORED BY MAJOR PONCE (DEF EX G FOR ID); AND THE FAVORABLE DEFENSE EXPERT TESTIMONY BY MR. THOMAS J. ARCHAMBAULT. 

4 Responses to “CAAF’s remaining cases”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Don’t forget Blazier part deux.

  2. Justin says:

    Did I miss the opinion in Burleson?
    http://www.caaflog.com/2009/07/08/caaf-grants-revised/

  3. Justin says:

    Well … I guess so: 2010 CAAF LEXIS 405.

  4. John Harwood says:

    I’ll be interested to see how Lloyd goes. Depends on whether CAAF wants to decide the issue narrowly (gov’t wins) or broadly (defense wins). I’m betting on narrowly.