Remember the Article 62 appeal in the Army case of United States v. Trank, No. 20130742 (A.Ct.Crim.App. Nov. 19, 2013) (link to unpub. op.)? It’s the case I wrote about last November, in a post titled: In the debate over whether an alleged victim should testify at an Article 32 hearing, the Army CCA has impeccable timing.
In an unpublished decision in United States v. Trank, No. 20130742 (A.Ct.Crim.App. Nov. 19, 2013) (available here and here), the CCA grants a Government interlocutory appeal in a sexual assault case involving an alleged child victim who refuses to testify at trial. The military judge prevented the Government from admitting the recorded pretrial statements of the alleged child victim. But the CCA reverses, finding that the pretrial statements are admissible because the Defense had the opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine the child when she made the statements during her testimony at the Article 32 hearing.
This was followed by a note in mid-January that the Accused petitioned CAAF for review of the Army CCA’s decision.
Last Friday, CAAF ordered a stay of the trial proceedings:
No. 14-6003/AR. U.S. v. Robert J. TRANK. CCA 20130742. On consideration of Appellant’s motion for a stay of proceedings, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted pending further order of the Court.