This week at SCOTUS: On Monday the Supreme Court will announce the results of its 10 May conference, including it’s decision on the petition in United States v. Miranda, No. 11-1237. The Court will also issue new opinions, possibly including the long-awaited opinion in Williams v. Illinois, No. 10-8505 (see our coverage here, here, and here).
I am not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court.
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in four cases this week. This is the last scheduled week of oral arguments in the term.
Tuesday, May 15:
United States v. Vela, No. 12-0194/AR
(I) Whether the military judge erred in denying the defense’s motion to dismiss or disqualify under United States v. Kastigar.
(II) Whether the evidence was legally insufficient to support the findings of guilty to Charge III.
United States v. Barnett, No. 12-0251/AF
Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he informed the members of appellant’s illegal pretrial punishment credit and then failed to instruct the members based on a submitted question that the were not allowed to nullify some or all of that credit by increasing the sentence.
• AFCCA opinion
• Blog post: AFCCA issues another published opinion
• Blog post: CAAF to consider what happens when members want to cancel out confinement credit
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (government) brief
Wednesday, May 16:
United States v. Rauscher, No. 12-0172/NA
Issue: Appellant was charged with, inter alia, assault with intent to commit murder under Article 134, UCMJ. But the specification failed to allege the terminal element. The members found Appellant not guilty of the charged offense, but guilty of aggravated assault under Article 128, UCMJ, as a lesser-included offense. Did the lower court err in holding that aggravated assault is a lesser-included offense of an Article 134 specification that fails to allege the terminal element?
United States v. Norwood, No. 11-0515/MC
(I) Whether, in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011), the specifications alleging attempted adultery and conspiracy to obstruct justice state offenses.
(II) Whether in order to state an offense of attempt or conspiracy under Articles 80 and 81, the specification is required to expressly allege each element of the predicate offense.
This week at the ACCA:
The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on May 23, 2012.
This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on May 22, 2012.
This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard Trial Docket shows no pending cases at the Coast Guard CCA.
This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows an oral argument scheduled for May 23, 2012, but no further information is available.