This week at SCOTUS: As discussed in this post, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Brown v. Gray, No. 12-7257, last week. Additionally, the Solicitor General waived the right to respond to the petition in Behenna v. United States. I’m not aware of any new petitions; there are now three active petitions in military justice cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on January 22, 2013.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Friday, January 18, 2013:

United States v. Wedlund, No. 20110637

Case Summary: Pursuant to his plea, appellant was convicted at a special court-martial of absence without leave. Additionally, although appellant possessed a valid prescription from the State of California to use marijuana, appellant pled guilty to and was convicted of wrongful use of marijuana. Appellant was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for three months, forfeiture of $978.00 pay per month for five months, and reduction to the grade of E-1.

Issue: [Whether] the military judge abused his discretion by accepting PVT Wedlund’s plea of guilty to Charge II by relying on an incorrect conclusory legal principal to support the wrongful element of the charge.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, United States v. Evenson, on Tuesday, January 15, 2013. I’m informed that this is an Article 62 appeal on the following issue:

Whether the military judge erred when he ruled that Appellee’s rights were violated due to a “de facto partial closure” of the Article 32 investigation.

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

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website has no scheduled oral arguments.

3 Responses to “This Week in Military Justice – 13 January 2013”

  1. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Are we making odds on whether the Supremes will call for a response in Behenna?

  2. Zachary Spilman says:

    Considering that the petition in Behenna asks:

    Whether a servicemember in a combat zone categorically forfeits the right to self-defense as a matter of law by pointing a firearm without authorization at a suspected enemy.

    And last year SCOTUS denied the petition in Stanley v. United States which asked:

    Whether an individual who brandishes a firearm loses his entitlement to lawfully defend himself and third parties against the subsequent use of deadly force by those on whom the weapon was brandished.

    And the somewhat key role CAAF’s decision in Stanley played in Judge Stucky’s majority opinion in Behenna, I’d bet neither call for response nor grant.

  3. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Behenna has something very important that Stanley did not — Jeffrey Fisher as the petitioner’s counsel of record.