This week at SCOTUS: As discussed last week, a cert petition with an IAC question was filed in Datavs v. United States. Additionally, petition for a rehearing was docketed in Brown v. Gray, No. 12-7257, which was denied cert back in January. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at The Supreme Court. There are now five military justice cases pending SCOTUS action:
- Ali v. United States, No. 12-805 (time for SG to file a response extended to Apr. 5)
- Behenna v. United States, No. 12-802 (time for SG to file court-ordered response extended to Mar. 29)
- Robins v. United States, No. 12-8799 (response waived; pending conference on Mar. 15)
- Datavs v. United States, No. 12-1113 (response due Apr. 12)
- Brown v. Gray, No. 12-7257 (pending conference on Mar. 22)
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, March 20, 2013. This argument will occur at the Naval Academy:
United States v. Solomon, No. 13-0025/MC (CAAFlog Case Page)
I. In a case involving sexual misconduct committed against a male victim, the military judge admitted extensive evidence under M.R.E. 404(b) and M.R.E. 413 that related to appellant’s previous acquittal for sexual misconduct committed against two females, despite alibi evidence that contradicted his involvement in the sexual misconduct with them. Did the military judge abuse his discretion in admitting the prior sexual misconduct evidence?
II. During the trial counsel’s closing and rebuttal argument, he expressed personal opinions on the evidence, vouched for the veracity of the government witnesses, ridiculed the defense’s case theory, argued facts not in evidence, and claimed that the defense cross-examinations were disingenuous. Did his improper conduct constitute prosecutorial misconduct and did it materially prejudice appellant’s substantial rights?
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, March 21, 2013:
United States v. Kelly, No. 20110138
I. Whether the court should set aside appellant’s conviction for premeditated murder because the military judge erroneously omitted the “cool mind distinction” from the definition of premeditated design to kill. United States v. Loving, 41 M.J. 213, 280 (C.A.A.F. 1994); United States v. Hoskins, 36 M.J. 343, 346 (C.M.A. 1993).
II. Whether the evidence is legally insufficient to support the finding that at the time of the killing appellant had a premeditated design to kill.
This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA’s is on March 28, 2013.
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 next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on April 16, 2013.