CAAF granted review of three cases today.

First, there’s this grant in an Army case, the facts of which strike me as rather Behenna-esque:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT A DEFENSE MOTION FOR MISTRIAL BASED ON THE TRIAL COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THAT APPELLANT’S CO-ACCUSED TESTIFIED AGAINST HIM IN EXCHANGE FOR THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE’S RECOMMENDATION THAT HIS SENTENCE BE REDUCED BY TWELVE MONTHS.

United States v. Coleman, __ M.J. __, No. 13-0007/AR (C.A.A.F. Nov. 5, 2012).  ACCA affirmed in this unpublished opinion.

CAAF also granted review of another Army case and ordered briefing in what looks like a trailer to the grant in United States v. Castellano, __ M.J. __, No. 12-0684/MC (C.A.A.F. Oct. 17, 2012), which we discussed here (see also previous discussion of the same issue here):

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS TO MAKE FINDINGS ON THE FACTORS IDENTIFIED IN UNITED STATES v. MARCUM, 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004).

 

United States v. Williams, __ M.J. __, No. 12-0331/AR (C.A.A.F. Nov. 5, 2012).  ACCA affirmed in this unpublished opinion, which doesn’t discuss the granted issue.

Finally, CAAF granted review but ordered that no briefs be filed in this Air Force case, which looks like a Tearman/Porter/Horton trailer:

 

WHETHER THE ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OF THE COVER MEMORANDUM AND THE SPECIMEN CUSTODY DOCUMENT’S CERTIFICATION OF APPELLANT’S DRUG TESTING REPORT WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

United States v. Burton, __ M.J. __, No. 10-0685/AF (C.A.A.F. Nov. 5, 2012).  AFCCA affirmed in this unpublished opinion.

Comments are closed.