CAAF granted review in three cases yesterday, but ordered no briefs.  One appears to be a Medina trailer:  “WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW BECAUSE THE STATUTORY SCHEME OF ARTICLE 120, UCMJ, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO APPELLANT BY FORCING HIM TO DISPROVE AN ELEMENT OF THE UNDERLYING CRIME.”  United States v. Garcia, __ M.J. ___, No. 10-0651/CG (C.A.A.F. Oct. 19, 2010).

The other two are Blazier II trailers:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE ALLOWED DR. SHIMOMURA TO TESTIFY IN RELIANCE UPON HEARSAY IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES AGAINST HIM AND WHETHER THE ADMISSION OF THE 24 APRIL 2009 BROOKS DRUG TESTING REPORT WITHOUT THE IN-COURT APPEARANCE OF THE ANALYSTS WHO TESTED APPELLANT’S SAMPLE ALSO VIOLATED APPELLANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION.

United States v. Stewart, __ M.J. ___, No. 10-0659/AF (C.A.A.F. Oct. 19, 2010).

I.  WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WAIVED OR FORFEITED APPELLANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO  CONFRONT WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BY NOT OBJECTING TO THE DRUG TESTING REPORT CONTAINING TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY.

II.  WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED MEANINGFUL CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GOVERNMENT WITNESSES IN  VIOLATION OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE ESSENTIAL BROOKS LABORATORY PERSONNEL WHO HANDLED APPELLANT’S URINE SAMPLES AND ALLOWED THE EXPERT TOXICOLOGIST TO TESTIFY TO NON-ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY.

United States v. Burton, __ M.J. __, No. 10-0685/AF (C.A.A.F. Oct. 19, 2010).

Comments are closed.