This will be a busy week in appellate military justice land, featuring a few oral arguments and CAAF’s annual Judicial Conference.

This week at the Supremes:  There are no anticipated military justice developments at the Supremes on my radar screen for this week.

This week at CAAF:  CAAF will hear oral argument in two Army cases on Monday.  First up is  United States v. Oliver, No. 11-0089/AR, where the granted issued is “WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF GUILTY TO DESERTION.”  Monday’s second argument is in United States v. Marsh, No. 11-0123/AR, where the issues are: 

I.  WHETHER IT WAS PLAIN ERROR FOR TRIAL COUNSEL TO ARGUE THAT THE PANEL SHOULD DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM APPELLANT’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH DURING PRESENTENCING BECAUSE APPELLANT WOULD NOT ANSWER HER QUESTIONS OR THEIRS.

II.  WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL SOUGHT TO INFLAME THE PASSIONS OF THE 82ND AIRBORNE PANEL BY IMPLYING THAT APPELLANT’S FALSE OFFICIAL STATEMENT DURING A RAPE INVESTIGATION PUTS PILOTS’ LIVES IN DANGER.

CAAF will be holding its annual Judicial Conference on Wednesday and Thursday at Catholic University’s law school.

This week at the CCAs:  On Tuesday, ACCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Antar, No. ARMY 20080836.  Here are the issues being argued:

I.  WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AND NOT REOPENING THE PROVIDENCE INQUIRY WITHOUT QUESTIONING BOTH APPELLANT AND HIS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL REGARDING APPELLANT’S BIPOLAR DISORDER, HIS EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS, AND POSSIBLE MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY DEFENSE.

III.  ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE SANITY BOARD, THE SANITY BOARD RESULTS CREATE A GENUINE ISSUE AS TO APPELLANT’S MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSES, SUCH THAT A REMAND TO THE TRIAL COURT IS WARRANTED.

Comments are closed.