Significant military justice event this week: The Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) will hold a public meeting on Friday, December 12, 2014, at the Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Here is a link to a public notice of the meeting. I discussed the DoD’s establishment of the JPP in this post. The panel’s website is: http://jpp.whs.mil/

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in four cases this week:

Tuesday, December 9, 2014, beginning at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Buford, No. 14-6010/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Certified Issue: Whether the military judge abused her discretion by suppressing evidence from the dell laptop, hewlett-packard laptop, and centon hard drive.
Granted Issue: Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) erred by finding A.B. consented to law enforcement’s search of the centon thumb drive and the dell laptop.

Case Links:
AFCCA oral argument audio
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: AFCCA partially denies a Government appeal of a suppression ruling
Blog post: The Air Force certifies Buford
Blog post: Hernandez appeals and CAAF grants in Buford
Appellant’s (Government) brief on the certified issue
Appellee’s brief on the certified issue
Cross-Appellant’s supplement to the petition for grant of review
Cross-Appellee’s (Government) answer to the petition for grant of review

United States v. Gutierrez, No. 13-0522/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the evidence was legally insufficient to find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed assault likely to result in grievous bodily harm.
II. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed adultery.
III. Whether the facially unreasonable delay in post trial processing deprived appellant of his due process right to speedy review pursuant to United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006).

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
• Brief of Amicus Curiae (Army Defense Appellate Division)

Wednesday, December 10, 2014, beginning at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Torres, No. 14-0222/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge erred by denying the defense requested instruction.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review in 7th instructional error case of the term
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

United States v. Bennitt, No. 12-0616/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals abused its discretion by re-affirming appellant’s approved sentence after this court set aside his conviction for manslaughter.

Case Links:
United States v. Bennitt, 72 M.J. 266 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (CAAFlog case page)
ACCA opinion
Blog post: Bennitt’s sentence remains the same
Blog post: Two new grants (one predicted, the other a trailer) and the return of Senior Judge Cox
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, December 10, 2014, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Rude, No. 20120139

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge erred in failing to apply any of the procedural safeguards required before permitting the members to consider propensity evidence under Mil. R. Evid. 413, and by giving an erroneously tailored spillover instruction regarding the proper use of propensity evidence.
II. Whether the military judge erred in denying the defense motion to compel an expert consultant.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows 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 Wednesday, December 10, 2014, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Oakley

Case summary: At the appellant’s retrial, a panel of members with enlisted representation, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of aggravated sexual assault and one specification of committing an indecent act, in violation of Article 120, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920 (2008). The members sentenced the appellant to five years’ confinement, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. Due to the limitations required by the appellant’s sentence at his previous court-martial, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for confinement for three months, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge.

Issue: Did the military judge’s findings of not guilty to the words “on divers occasions” in the first trial create an ambiguous verdict and a double jeopardy violation that precludes this court’s review of specifications 1 and 2 under Article 66, UCMJ?

We mentioned the NMCCA’s decision reversing the original conviction in this post.

Comments are closed.