This week at SCOTUS: I am not aware of any new military justice developments at the Supreme Court. However, two cases of interest to military practitioners will be argued this week:
First, on Wednesday, SCOTUS will hear oral argument in United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210, which tests the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S.C. § 704(b)). The granted issue is:
Whether the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704(b), which makes it a crime to falsely represent that you have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
SCOTUSblog’s coverage of United States v. Alvarez is here: link.
Then, also on Wednesday, the Court will hear argument in the double jeopardy case of Blueford v. Arkansas, No. 10-1320, which presents the following issue:
Whether, if a jury deadlocks on a lesser-included offense, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the re-prosecution of a greater offense after a jury announces that it has voted against guilt on the greater offense.
Double jeopardy is also on CAAF’s docket this term, in United States v. Easton, No. 12-0053/AR (scheduled for argument in March).
SCOTUSblog’s coverage of Blueford v. Arkansas is here: link.
This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on March 12, 2012.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in two case this week.
The first, United States v. Shaw, No. 20100158, will be argued on Wednesday, February 22, and addresses the application of Military Rule of Evidence 412 (the “rape shield”). The issues are:
I. [Whether] the military judge erred in excluding, under Military Rule of Evidence 412, evidence that the alleged victim had engaged in prior consensual sex with the appellant despite initially telling him to stop.
II. [Whether] the Military Rule of Evidence 412(c)(3) balancing test, as interpreted by United States v. Banker, 60 M.J. 216 (C.A.A.F., 2004), is unconstitutional.
CAAF considered M.R.E. 412 last term in United States v. Ellerbrock, 70 M.J. 314 (fact-intensive analysis of application of the rule), and United States v. Gaddis, 70 M.J. 248 (rejecting a constitutional challenge to the rule).
The second, United States v. Ron, No. 20100599, will be argued on Thursday, February 23, and is a Prather trailer:
I. [Whether] the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the findings of guilt for forcible sodomy and abusive sexual contact.
II. [Whether] the burden placed on appellant to prove consent, by a preponderance of the evidence, in order to raise an affirmative defense to abusive sexual contact of a person who was substantially incapacitated under Article 120, UCMJ, violated appellant’s right to due process under the 5th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on March 15, 2012.
This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard Trial Docket shows one case pending at the Coast Guard CCA, and set for argument on May 7, 2012.
This week at the N-MCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s docket doesn’t shows any scheduled oral arguments.