CAAF granted review of four new cases on Thursday:

No. 13-0573/AR.  U.S. v. Calvin J. DAVENPORT.  CCA 20081102.  Review granted on the following issue:

Whether the omission of testimony from a trial transcript renders the transcript non-verbatim and therefore subject to the remedy in R.C.M. 1103(f)(1) where the witness’s testimony is only relevant to an offense of which appellant has been acquitted; or, whether such omission should be addressed under R.C.M. 1103(b)(2)(a)(requirement for a complete record) and thus tested for whether the presumption of prejudice has been rebutted.  See United States v. Gaskins, 72 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2013); United States v. Henry, 53 M.J. 108 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

The ACCA’s opinion is here. Our coverage of Gaskins is available on its CAAFlog case page.

No. 14-0040/NA.  U.S. v. Ethan S. SHORT.  CCA 201200483.  Review granted on the following issue:

A punitive discharge may not be affirmed when the record is not verbatim. Here, during sentencing, the members heard some portion of the providence inquiry which drew a curative instruction from the military judge. On appeal, the lower court attached, over defense objection, what purported to be the missing section. This section was not properly authenticated nor does it accurately reflect the missing portion. May appellant’s punitive discharge be affirmed despite the lack of a verbatim record?

The NMCCA’s opinion is here.

No. 14-0071/AR.  U.S. v. Travis D. JONES.  CCA 20110679.  Review granted on the following issue:

Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he denied the defense’s motion to suppress appellant’s statement to the military police.

The ACCA affirmed without a written opinion.

No. 14-0230/AR.  U.S. v. Samuel R. SPOTTS.  CCA 20111144.  Review granted on the following issue:

Whether appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial defense counsel failed to request deferment of automatic forfeitures on his behalf.

The ACCA affirmed without a written opinion. 

CAAF’s docket also notes an appeal by the accused in the Article 62 case of United States v. Trank, No. 20130742 (A.Ct.Crim.App. Nov. 19, 2013) (link to slip op.), where the CCA granted a Government interlocutory appeal in a sexual assault case involving an alleged child victim who refuses to testify at trial. I discussed the CCA’s decision in this post (where I wrote, “I’d be surprised if CAAF doesn’t weigh in on this case.”). The Government’s response is due by January 27.

Comments are closed.