This week at SCOTUS: The Supreme Court denied the petition for review in Easton v. United States, No. 12-210 last week. The petition for review in Behenna v. United States, No. 12-802 was added to the February 15, 2013, conference. I’m not aware of any new petitions in military justice cases, leaving just two active petitions:
- Ali v. United States, No. 12-805 (pending a response from the SG (due February 4))
- Behenna v. United States, No. 12-802 (pending conference on February 15)
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in four cases this week. On Tuesday, January 22, 2013, beginning at 9:30am, the court will hear argument in United States v. Holsey, No. 12-0597/AR, followed by United States v. Riley, No. 11-0675/AR. On Wednesday, January 23, 2013, beginning at 9:30am, the court will hear oral argument in United States v. Mott, No. 12-0604/NA, followed by United States v. Castellano, No. 12-0684/MC.
United States v. Holsey, No. 12-0597/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he rejected Appellant’s plea based upon a necessity defense that is neither recognized in military courts nor applicable to Appellant’s case.
United States v. Riley, No. 11-0675/AR (CAAFlog case page)
I. Whether appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when her defense counsel failed to inform her that she would have to register as a sex offender after pleading guilty.
II. Whether, in light of United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F. 2006), there is a substantial basis to question appellant’s guilty plea due to the military judge’s failure to inquire if trial defense counsel informed appellant that the offense to which she pleaded guilty would require appellant to register as a sex offender.
United States v. Mott, No. 12-0604/NA (CAAFlog case page)
I. A lack of mental responsibility defense exists when a mentally diseased accused cannot appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. Here, experts testified that appellant’s paranoid schizophrenia and severe delusions created his subjective belief that stabbing the victim was justified. But the military judge and NMCCA adopted an objective standard for “wrongfulness.” What is the appropriate standard in determining whether an accused can appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct?
II. Under the Fifth Amendment, an accused’s statement to investigators is admissible only if it was obtained with a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver where the accused understands his rights and the consequences of waiving them. Here, expert witnesses testified that appellant could not understand his rights or the consequences of waiving them because of his severe mental disease. Did the military judge err by admitting the statement?
• NMCCA opinion (Mott I)
• Blog post: Second conviction in Mott
• NMCCA opinion (Mott II)
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Government) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview
United States v. Castellano, No. 12-0684/MC (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: In Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held that the trier of fact must determine whether judicially-created factors that distinguish between constitutionally-protected and criminal conduct are satisfied. The factors identified in United States v. Marcum are an example of such factors but the lower court held that the military judge must determine whether the Marcum factors are satisfied. Who determines whether they have been satisfied?
This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 31, 2013.
This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard Trial Docket shows one case pending before the Coast Guard CCA, and scheduled for oral argument on January 30, 2013.
This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 13, 2013.