On Thursday, AFCCA will hear oral argument in the Nevada Supreme Court’s courtroom in Las Vegas at 1300.  The case being heard is United States v. Datavs, No. ACM 37537, on this issue:

WHETHER APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSITANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO OBTAIN AN EXPERT CONSULTANT IN THE FIELD OF SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATIONS, FAILED TO MAKE CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE AGAINST TWO PANEL MEMBERS THAT WERE ALSO BASE VICTIM ADVOCATES, FAILED TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY FOUNDATION TO ADMIT TELEPHONE RECORDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPEACHING THE COMPLAINING WITNESS, FAILED TO ARGUE MISTAKE OF FACT DURING FINDINGS ARGUMENT, AND FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IN SENTENCING REGARDING SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS.

Of course, the biggest question is whether Judge Mathews the Greatest will be on hand to see his alma mater at work.

6 Responses to “TWIMJ addendum — Viva Las Vegas!”

  1. SgtDad says:

    … FAILED TO MAKE CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE AGAINST TWO PANEL MEMBERS THAT WERE ALSO BASE VICTIM ADVOCATES …

    May we ask you officer-types what sort of honor code allows convening authority to nominate such a person for the panel in the first place? While you’re at it, tell us why convening authority would think unit cohesion would not be adversely affected by putting the fix in like this.

  2. Phil Cave says:

    SG (not to be mistaken for SG): It’s not just there. I did a case late last year where they put a victim advocate on once we’d gone below quorum. And that was after lengthy and contentious issues about the whole selection process.

  3. Christopher Mathews says:

    SD, Article 25 contains no restrictions based on the prospective member’s specialty code or additional duties.

    As a prosecutor, I would ordinarily not be comfortable with social workers or doctors on a panel, yet those are some of the persons trained as victim advocates. The mere fact that someone has such training doesn’t mean that they would predictably be partial to one side or the other.

    In this particular case, the appellant was convicted of two specifications of forcible sodomy, yet the members sentenced him to no confinement. If, as you say, “the fix was in,” I’d have expected a significantly harsher sentence.

  4. GeorgetownJD says:

    Goodness, I hope that typo in the word “assistance” did not appear in the brief. Maybe it’s just me, but I find such errors distracting from the argument.

  5. Dew_Process says:

    I find it offensive that I cannot get a Convening Authority to approve an expert consultant in a “Spice” case because he “costs too much,” while CAAF and its’ staff take a trip to Los Vegas.

  6. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Hoya Lawya, that typo in “assistance” was mine not counsel’s. Sorry!

    Dew, this is an AFCCA Outreach to coincide with an Air Force military justice conference in Vegas, not a CAAF Outreach argument.