Here is a link to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision in United States v. Eller, Misc. No. 2013-15 (A.F. Ct. Crim. Ap.. Jun. 21, 2013), denying a government appeal of a military judge’s decision to grant a challenge for cause based on a member of a court-martial panel’s “knowledge of comments made by the President regarding sexual assault in the military, as well as her personal views on whether verbal consent was required as a prerequisite to consensual sexual interaction.” The Court found:
The military judge acted within his wide latitude of authority in granting the defense challenge for cause, and his decision to do so did not constitute error. As we have held the military judge’s decision to grant the challenge of Col Hall for cause was not error, such decision would not—by clear implication—meet the standard required for us to issue the writ the Government seeks.
On the jurisdictional issue the AFCCA passed on whether it has the power to review government appeals outside the confines of Art. 62, UCMJ:
We need not decide whether the Government may secure, via a petition for mandamus, an interlocutory appellate review of a trial court’s order that does not fall within those matters specifically contemplated by Article 62, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 862, because assuming arguendo that such review were proper, the petitioner would not prevail.
We’ll see what their sister court says in United States v. Fulton.