This week at the Supremes: Tomorrow’s order list is likely to include the denial of two military cert petitions: Neal, 09-14, and Loving, No. 09-989. (Grants from the long conference have already been announced, which means that the remainder, including Neal and Loving, are likely to be denied, though some cases considered at the long conference that weren’t granted may be relisted for a future conference.)
This week at CAAF: CAAF is hearing oral arguments in four cases this week. (Thanks, CPT Korte!)
The issue in United States v. Alston, No. 10-0172/AR, is: :WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE, OVER APPELLANT’S OBJECTION, ERRONEOUSLY INSTRUCTED THE PANEL THAT AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT WAS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF RAPE BY FORCE.”
United States v. Luke, No. 05-0157/NA, represents the return of the USACIL mad scientist to CAAF. Here are the issues:
WHETHER THE RESULTS OF APPELLANT’S TRIAL ARE NOT RELIABLE IN LIGHT OF NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
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.
WHETHER APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY THE UNTIMELY POST-TRIAL PROCESSING AND APPELLATE REVIEW OF HIS COURT-MARTIAL.
Tuesday’s oral arguments begin with United States v. Staton, No. 10-0237/AF, which presents this issue: “WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO KILL OR INJURE THE ORIGINAL TRIAL COUNSEL.”
Also on Tuesday, CAAF will hear oral arugment in United States v. White, No. 10-0182/AF, on these issues:
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.
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.
This week at the CCAs: ACCA is hearing an outreach argument tomorrow at the South Texas College of Law. The case is United States v. Figueroamarcial, No. ARMY 20090056. Here are the issues being argued:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION BASED ON UNITED STATES V. BATSON, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY INSTRUCTING THE MEMBERS, OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION, THAT ABUSIVE SEXUAL CONTACT WAS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF FORCIBLE SODOMY.