This week at SCOTUS: As discussed in this post, a petition for certiorari was filed last week in Behenna v. United States.There are now four active petitions in military justice cases:
- Easton v. United States, No. 12-210 (distributed for conference on January 11)
- Brown v. Gray, No. 12-7257 (pending the results of the conference on January 4)
- Ali v. United States, No. 12-805 (pending a response from the SG (due February 4))
- Behenna v. United States, No. 12-802 (pending a response from the SG (due February 4))
This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on January 22, 2013.
This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 31, 2013.
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 Wednesday, January 9, 2013 (this argument was continued from Dec. 11):
United States v. Escocheasanchez
A general court-martial composed of officer members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of aggravated sexual assault, one specification of attempted aggravated sexual assault, two specifications of indecent act, one specification of indecent exposure, one specification of wrongful sexual contact, and two specifications of obstruction of justice in violation of Articles 120 and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920 and 934. The members sentenced Appellant to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 15 years, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and except for the dishonorable discharge, ordered it executed.
Whether Article 120(c) is unconstitutional as applied when the military judge (1) required appellant to prove the affirmative defenses of consent and mistake of fact as to consent by a preponderance of the evidence; (2) determined that the defenses had been proved by a preponderance of the evidence; and then (3) failed to dismiss the charges sua sponte as required by Rule for Courts-Martial 917.