This week at SCOTUS: I am aware of no new military justice developments at the Supreme Court.
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in three cases this week:
Tuesday, January 10:
United States v. Dease, No: 12-6001/AF
Issue: Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred by finding Appellant had abandoned his urine and thus had no reasonable expectation of privacy where Appellant consented to the seizure of his urine and then revoked consent prior to the search of Appellant’s urine.
Note: Dease was an Article 62 appeal to the AFCAA. See our prior coverage linked below.
• AFCCA opinion
• Blog post: AFCCA Clarifies Expectation of Privacy in Urine
• Blog post: Significant search and seizure CAAF grant
• Appellant’s supplement to the petition for review
• Appellee’s (government) answer
• Blog Post: Argument Preview
United States v. Weeks, No. 11-0526/AF
Issue: Whether Appellant’s guilty plea to Charge II and its specification is improvident because Appellant did not falsely make or alter a signature or writing
Wednesday, January 11:
United States v. Stewart, No. 11-0440/MC
I. Under United States v. Prather, is it legally possible for the prosecution to disprove an affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt once the military judge has determined that the defense has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence and, if not, is the military judge required to enter a finding of not guilty in such a case under RCM 917?
II. Whether the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erred in finding the evidence factually sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain appellant’s conviction under specification 2 because in doing so it (1) violated the Prather legal-impossibility principle and (2) impermissibly found as facts allegations that he was found not guilty of in specification 1.
III. Whether the military judge committed prejudicial error by requiring the defense to present evidence on the defense of consent at an Article 39(a) session prior to trial.
This week at the ACCA: On Thursday, January 12 the Army CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Giddens, No. 20090598. The case addresses whether the accused could plead guilty to a number of Article 134 specifications that lacked terminal elements.
I. The evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support a finding that appellant committed an indecent act, indecent exposure, aggravated sexual contact with a child, attempted sodomy, and unlawful entry (specifications 1, 2 and 4 of charge III and charge VI).
II. The military judge erred in denying the defense request for a post-trial 39(a) session and new trial after evidence was discovered, post-trial, involving AAG and AKS that bears directly on the credibility of their allegations against appellant, and as such, appellant also petitions this court for a new trial.
III. The military judge erred in denying the defense multiplicity/unreasonable multiplication of charges motion for specification 4 of charge III, touching AKS’s buttocks with appellant’s hands and penis, and charge IV, pushing appellant’s penis against the buttocks of AKS. See United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F., 2001).
IV. The military judge erred by not granting appellant’s motion for a mistrial after the government appointed a last minute “reasonable alternative” expert to the defense and then attacked the expert’s qualifications and time spent reviewing the case file.
This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s docket shows no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard Trial Docket shows no pending cases before the Coast Guard CCA.
This week at the N-MCCA: The oral argument webpage for the Navy-Marine Corps CCA indicates that the court will hear oral argument on Wednesday, January 11, however the posted schedule is from November, 2011.