This week at SCOTUS: The petition in Datavs was added to the April 12 conference. The Court denied the petition for a rehearing in Brown v. Gray, No. 12-7257. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at The Supreme Court. There are now three 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 further extended to Apr. 29)
- Datavs v. United States, No. 12-1113 (pending conference on Apr. 12)
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in four cases this week:
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, beginning at 9:30 a.m.:
United States v. Bennitt, No. 12-0616/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Granted Issue: Whether appellant’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter under Article 119(b)(2), UCMJ, is legally insufficient because (1) in accordance with United States v. Sargent, 18 M.J. 331 (C.M.A. 1982), appellant’s distribution of oxymorphone was not a crime directly affecting the person under Article 119(b)(2), and (2) even if so, Congress did not intend for Article 119(b)(2) to cover appellant’s misconduct.
Specified Issue: In Specification 2 of Charge I Appellant is charged with unlawfully killing Leah King while aiding and abetting Ms. King’s wrongful use of Oxymorphone, which is alleged to be an “offense” directly affecting the person of Ms. King. Must Ms. King’s use of Oxymorphone be an “offense” to be legally sufficient to support the finding of guilty under Article 119(b)(2)?
ACCA opinion (summary affirmance with a footnote)
• Granted issue: Appellant’s brief
• Granted issue: Appellee’s (Government) brief
• Specified issue: Appellant’s brief
• Specified issue: Appellee’s (Government) brief
United States v. Salyer, No. 13-0186/MC (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Under United States v. Lewis, a case is dismissed with prejudice when unlawful command influence results in the recusal of a military judge. Here, the military judge recused himself because he found that the government’s actions made it impossible for him to remain on the case. The government complained to his supervisor about a ruling, accessed his service record without permission and, with this information, moved for his recusal. Should this case be dismissed with prejudice?
• NMCCA opinion
• Blog post: NMCCA judicial voir dire/UCI opinion
• Blog post: NIMJ’s Salyer amicus
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Government) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief (CAAFlog link)
Wednesday, April 3, 2013, beginning at 9:30 a.m.:
United States v. Squire, No. 13-0061/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether Appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser when the military judge permitted testimonial hearsay in the form of SL’s statement to a physician.
United States v. Wilson, No. 13-0096/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether appellant was denied his right to a speedy trial in violation of Article 10, UCMJ, when the government failed to act with reasonable diligence in bringing him to trial.
This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on April 10, 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 no pending cases at the Coast Guard CCA.
This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, April 3, 2013:
United States v. Campbell
Case summary: A military judge, sitting as a special court-martial, convicted the appellant, consistent with his pleas, of one specification of larceny in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 921. The military judge sentenced the appellant to a fine of $1,142.00, reduction to pay grade E-1, 75-days confinement, and a bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered it executed.
Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he accepted appellant’s guilty plea to larceny on divers occasions of an amount in excess of $500 where no single larceny exceeded $118.71?