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:

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)

Issues:
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?

Case Links:
NMCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grant
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

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

Issues:
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.

One Response to “This Week in Military Justice – 17 March 2013”

  1. Ama Goste says:

    No shock here–MAJ Hasan can’t plead guilty to Ft. Hood deaths.  Interesting that the article cites “Army rules” that prevent him from pleading to a capital offense.  I’m pretty sure those rules apply to all the services.  The end of the article also mentions a terrorism expert’s proposed testimony as being “prejudicial.”  If the evidence isn’t prejudicial, it’s not relevant.  I believe the word “unfairly” was omitted from the phrase.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-wont-let-fort-hood-shooting-suspect-plead-guilty-to-any-charges-trial-will-proceed/2013/03/20/090e7c4c-91be-11e2-9173-7f87cda73b49_story.html