This week at SCOTUS: There are two active petitions for certiorari in military justice cases:

Fry v. United States, No. 11-1395 (pending conference on November 9).
Easton v. United States, No. 12-210 (pending a response from the SG, due on November 19).

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in three cases this week:

Tuesday, November 13, 2012, at 9:00am: United States v. Goings, No. 11-0547/AR

Issues:
I. Whether Lawrence v. Texas extends a zone of privacy to the indecent act of which Appellant as convicted.
II. Whether Specification 6 of Charge II fails to state an offense because it does not expressly allege or necessarily imply the terminal element of Article 134, UCMJ.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion (summary affirmation)
Blog post: What’s Goings on
Appellant’s Brief
Appellee’s (Government) Brief
Appellant’s Reply Brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by: United States v. Altier, No. 12-0496/NA

Issue:
Whether Appellant’s sentence violates Article 63, UCMJ, and R.C.M. 810(d) because it is in excess of and more severe than his original approved court-martial sentence.

Case Links:
NMCCA opinion (Altier I)
Blog post: NMCCA sets-aside otherwise-lawful sentence…
NMCCA opinion (Altier II)
Blog post: Enforcing (or not) the sentence limitation provisions of Article 63
Appellant’s Brief
Appellee’s (Government) Brief
Appellant’s Reply Brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by: United States v. Hutchins, No. 12-0408/MC

Issues:
I. Whether the findings and sentence must be dismissed with prejudice where unlawful command influence from the Secretary of the Navy has undermined substantial post-trial rights of the Appellant.
II. The Appellant was interrogated by NCIS concerning his involvement in the alleged crimes, and terminated the interview by invoking his right to counsel.  Appellant was thereafter held incommunicado and placed in solitary confinement where he was denied the ability to communicate with a lawyer or any other source of assistance.  Appellant was held under these conditions for 7 days, whereupon NCIS re-approached Appellant and communicated with him regarding their ongoing investigation.  In response, Appellant waived his previously invoked right to counsel and subsequently provided NCIS a sworn statement concerning the alleged crimes. Did the military judge err when he denied the defense motuion to suppress the Appellant’s statement?  See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), and United States v. Brabant, 29 M.J. 259 (C.M.A. 1989).

Case Links:
Note: Hutchins has been around for a few years. See the case page for our coverage going back to 2009.
NMCCA opinion (Hutchins I) (68 M.J. 623 (2010) (en banc))
CAAF opinion (Hutchins II) (69 M.J. 282 (2011))
NMCCA opinion (Hutchins III)
Appellant’s Brief
Appellee’s (Government) Brief
Appellant’s Reply Brief

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on December 6, 2012.

This week at the AFCCA: There are no scheduled oral arguments posted on the Air Force CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard Trial Docket shows no pending cases at the Coast Guard CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: There are no scheduled oral arguments posted on the Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website.

Comments are closed.