This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General received an extension of time to file a response in Easton v. United States, No. 12-210. The response is now due on December 12, 2012. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court.

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week, both on Tuesday, November 27, 2012:

United States v. Cote, No. 12-0522/AF

Issue: Whether evidence found on Appellant’s computer should be suppressed because it was found pursuant to a search that violated the terms of the warrant.

Case Links:
AFCCA Article 62 (interlocutory) opinion
AFCCA Article 66 (merits) opinion
Appellant’s Brief
Appellee’s (Government) Brief
Blog post: Argument preview

United States v. Caldwell, No.12-0353/MC

Issue: Whether, as a matter of law, a bona fide suicide attempt is punishable as self-injury under Article 134.

Case Links:
NMCCA opinion
Blog post: NMCCA to reconsider en banc in Caldwell
NMCCA’s published opinion on reconsideration (70 M.J. 630 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2011) (en banc))
Blog post: JSC to review self-injury offenses
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

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 Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, November 29, 2012:

United States v. Moreno (before the court en banc)
Appears to be a reconsideration of this per curiam opinion issued on August 31, 2012.

Case Summary: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of six specifications of larceny, two specifications of housebreaking, two specifications of wrongfully taking images of women, one specification of adultery, and four specifications of concealing stolen property in violation of Articles 120, 121, 130, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 921, 930, and 934 (2006). A panel of members with enlisted representation sentenced the appellant to two years confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a bad-conduct discharge. Pursuant to a pre-trial agreement, the Convening Authority disapproved the adjudged forfeitures, but otherwise approved the sentence and, except for the bad-conduct discharge, ordered it executed.

I. Whether the military judged erred in accepting as provident the appellant’s plea to concealment of stolen property?
II. Whether an appellant can be convicted of concealment of stolen property when he is the principal who committed the larcency of the same property he thereafter concealed?
III. What is the proper reference point for calculating when the statute of limitations governing the offense of concealment of stolen property in violation of UCMJ Article 134 begins to run and whether there were any factors present in this case that affected the calculation of that statute of limitations?

Comments are closed.