A comment pointed out that I missed a new military justice case at the Supreme Court in this week’s TWIMJ. Turns out there are two new cases.

A petition for certiorari was filed in Easton v. United States, No. 12-210, on August 9. The Solicitor General waived the right to respond on August 21. CAAF ruled against the Petitioner back in June, finding “that Congress appropriately exercised its Article I power . . . when it enacted Article 44(c), UCMJ.” United States v. Easton, 71 M.J. 168, slip op. at 22 (C.A.A.F. 2012).

Easton Case Links:
ACCA’s published opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Oral argument audio
Blog post: Argument recap
CAAF opinion
Blog post: Opinion analysis

Additionally, a petition for certiorari was filed in Rose v. United States, No. 12-229, on August 21. CAAF ruled in favor of the Petitioner back in May, affirming the AFCCA’s finding of ineffective assistance of counsel based on “counsel’s failure to comply with a reasonable request for information about sex offender registration.” United States v. Rose, 71 M.J. 138, slip op. at 13 (C.A.A.F. 2012). However, the court also decided a cross-appeal of a defective Article 134 specification adversely to the Petitioner, based on its reasoning in United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28 (C.A.A.F. 2012), cert. denied, __ S.Ct. __ (June 25, 2012). Our Colonel Sullivan is counsel for the Petitioner.

Rose Case Links (see the argument preview for case links for Rose I & II):
Rose III: AFCCA opinion (en banc) (Mar 9, 2011)
Rose III: AFCCA opinion on reconsideration (en banc) (Aug 15, 2011)
Rose III: Blog post: AFJAG recertifies Rose
Rose III
: Appellant’s (government) CAAF brief
Rose III: Appellee’s CAAF brief
Rose III: Amicus CAAF bref
Rose III: Blog post: Argument preview
Rose III: Oral argument audio
Rose III: CAAF opinion
Rose III: Blog post: Opinion analysis

With the addition of these two cases, there are now a total of five active petitions for certiorari in military justice cases. The other three are Hatley v. United States, No. 12-187Fry v. United States, No. 11-1395, and Stanley v. United States, No. 11-1500.

Comments are closed.