This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking seven cases (six of which will be considered at Monday’s conference):

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on October 7, 2014.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website should no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website should no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard Trial Docket shows no scheduled oral arguments at the Coast Guard CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on October 1, 2014, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Hoffmann

Case Summary: A panel of members, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of attempted sodomy of a child, indecent liberties with a child, possession of child pornography, and enticement, in violation of Articles 80, 120, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 920, 934 (Supp. 2007). The members sentenced the appellant to reduction to pay grade E-1, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, confinement for 7 years, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence and, except for the dishonorable discharge, ordered it executed.

Issue: A search must be supported by probable cause. Here, to support a search authorization for child pornography, the supporting affidavit only asserted (1) allegations of a different crime, attempted child enticement, and (2) an NCIS agent’s opinion there is intuitive relationship between the two offenses. Did the military judge abuse his discretion by failing to suppress the evidence for lack of probable cause?


6 Responses to “This Week in Military Justice – September 28, 2014”

  1. Random SWO says:

    Not mil-justice related, but California has signed a law requiring affirmative consent for sex (but only on college campuses).

  2. Ed says:

    The one positive aspect of this ridiculous law is that it will affect people with the resources to file lawsuits for defamation without Feres being applicable.

  3. stewie says:

    It looks like the law doesn’t necessarily “require” it, but that it says colleges must have this “policy” if they want to keep their state funding.
    It doesn’t actually appear to change any criminal laws, or am I missing something (I admit I didn’t read it thoroughly).

  4. k fischer says:

    Apparently, the State of California did not read Camille Paglia’s piece in Time magazine.  Talk about a victim blamer!

  5. k fischer says:

    And my favorite quote of the day as a retort to all those in Congress who believes that any institution, whether it be military, the NFL, the NCAA, or our universities, does not protect victims of sexual assault well.

    Real crimes should be reported to the police, not to haphazard and ill-trained campus grievance committees.

    Although, I can understand why the military, if there is in fact a rape epidemic, would be the proper institution to address, since the military has prosecutorial authority under the UCMJ and jails to house those convicted.  I have to wonder why college students feel that they can only report a rape to a non-Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) academic administrator with zero LEO training?

  6. J says:

    K Fischer: Unfortunately, Colleges are required to investigate sexual assault cases, something that Congress needs to fix. When ill-trained campus committees are required to exist, they will.