I haven’t yet listened to Wednesday’s oral argument in United States v. Moss, No. 13-0348/AR (CAAFlog case page), but today CAAF ordered the parties to file briefs on four additional issues:
I. Whether the decision to appeal to this Court is a personal decision of the Appellant, and if so, in what manner may such a decision be made?
II. Whether there is any evidence in the record that the Appellant has authorized an appeal to this Court, and if there is no such authorization, is there nonetheless a continuing duty to represent the Appellant, and if so, from where does this duty derive?
III. In circumstances where the Appellant cannot be located during the time period available to file a petition for grant of review at this Court, what is the responsibility of appellate defense counsel in the context of the statutory time limit in Article 67, UCMJ, to file an appeal?
IV. Should this case be dismissed with prejudice under the holding in United States v. Schreck, 10 M.J. 226 (C.M.A. 1981)?
The court also specifically invited the other services’ appellate divisions to file amicus briefs.
• ACCA opinion
• Blog post: At a trial in absentia, defense counsel gave an unsworn statement, then invoked. CAAF understandably curious…
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Government) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview
• CAAF argument audio
• Blog post: CAAF orders additional briefing