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. 12-187, Fry v. United States, No. 11-1395, and Stanley v. United States, No. 11-1500.