This week at the Supremes:  The cert petition in Clayton v. United States, No. 09-1532, has been distributed for Friday’s conference.  The cert petition is available here.  The SG’s brief in opposition is available here.

This week at CAAF:  A bottle of green elixer plays a prominent role in the Broadway musical Wicked.  I think of United States v. Pope, No. 10-0447/AF, as the Wicked case.  Here are the granted issues:

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

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.

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.

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

Also being argued on Tuesday, but not reminding me of any Broadway musicals, is United States v. Stefan, No. 10-0349/AR, which presents this issue:

WHETHER THE APPELLANT MUST SHOW PREJUDICE TO OBTAIN RELIEF WHERE THE CONVENING AUTHORITY RECEIVED ADVICE ON CLEMENCY FROM A PERSON DISQUALIFIED FROM DOING SO BY ARTICLE 6 UCMJ, AND, IF SO, WHETHER THERE WAS PREJUDICE IN THIS CASE.

This week at the CCAs:  On the Marine Corps’ birthday, NMCCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Spicer on this issue:

WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT’S CLAIM THAT 17 YEAR OLD VL SUBMITTED TO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH APPELLANT BECAUSE OF PARENTAL COMPULSION, THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY EXCLUDING UNDER M.R.E. 412: (1) EVIDENCE OF VL’S SEXUAL EXPERIENCE AND (2) EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT HER EXPERIENCE MADE IT LESS LIKELY THAT SHE SUBMITTED TO INTERCOURSE DUE TO PARENTAL COMPULSION?

One Response to “This week in military justice — 7 November 2010 edition”

  1. mmm says:

    “A demonstration of how appellant was packaging the marijuana was not particularly helpful to the court members, as even the most unimaginative member could readily understand the testimony explaining that small portions of the marijuana were placed in “baggies,” which were rolled into cylindrical shapes, then placed in the laundry bag. On the other hand, a large amount of marijuana displayed in the courtroom can be expected to have great emotional impact upon court members. The potential was great that the court would be misled and diverted from its legitimate duties. There was the real danger that the substance would be understood by the members to be the marijuana with which appellant was found. That marijuana would not be admissible absent adequate foundation.”

    U.S. v. Penn, 4 MJ 879, 886 (NMCMR 1978).