This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any new military justice developments at SCOTUS. However, Williams v. Illinois, No. 10-8505, is scheduled for oral argument on Tuesday, presenting the following issue relevant to urinalysis cases:
Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts violates the Confrontation Clause, when the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts.
This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on 12 December.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in four cases this week:
Tuesday 6 December
United States v. Weaver, No. 20090397
Issue: The military judge erred in finding the government did not have to disclose [SDW]’s pre-trial statements; the military judge erred in not stopping the court-martial proceedings to further investigate her statements that she had seen a psychiatrist and that she had a borderline personality disorder.
Wednesday 7 December
United States v. Bowersox, No. 20100580
I. Appellant’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. §1466a(b)(1) and clause two of Article 134 is legally insufficient.
II. The military judge erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from appellant’s computers because the affidavit in support of the search authorization did not establish probable cause.
III. The military judge erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress his statement to special agent kirk ellis since special agent elleis did not properly inform appellant of the specific nature of the offenses he was suspected of commiting.
United States v. Cooper, No. 20110914 (note: this appears to be an Art. 62 appeal)
Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion in granting the defense motion to suppress the statement of sergeant cooper.
Thursday 8 December
United States v. Boyle, No. 20090893
I. Whether the evidence was factually and legally sufficient to support the findings of guilty to charge 1, where there was no evidence of an agreement to commit an assault consummatted [sic] by [a] battery. Likewise, whether the evidence was factually and legally sufficient to support the findings of guilty to charge 2, where the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that appellant caused or was the proximate cause of the death of the victim.
II. Whether the military judge abused his discretion by improperly limiting questions during the post-trial sessions.
III. Whether the military judge abused his discretion by failing to grant a mistrial based on the improper screening of the panel members, the conflict of interest of trial counsel who was the legal advisor to over half of the panel, and the appearance of unfairness created after the trial when a member approaced [sic] a sentencing witness and told him that the panel had an agenda.
IV. Whether the convening authority improperly screened the panel members resulting in a panel with an unfair representation from the upper echelons of the command chain.
This Week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Brissette on Tuesday 6 December. No additional information is available on the AFCCA’s website.
This Week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard Trial Docket shows no pending cases before the CGCCA.
This week at the N-MCCA: The N-MCCA docket shows no upcoming oral arguments.