Thanks to a reader, I can share this incredible order from the Air Force CCA, issued last Friday, scheduling oral argument for this Tuesday at 10 a.m., in the case of United States v. Sauk, No. 38398. The CCA specified the following issue for argument:
Whether this court should dismiss the charges and specifications in this case based on the government’s deliberate refusal to comply with a binding post-trial discovery order from this court, when no court has issued a stay of enforcement of such order. Alternatively, whether this court should hold appellate government counsel in contempt of court for willfully disobeying a lawful order to produce post-trial discovery? See United States v. Bowser, Misc. Dkt. No. 2014-08, __ M.J. ___ (A. F. Ct. Crim. App. 2014).
The CCA will sit en banc for the argument. The order provides a factual background for the specified issue. The court’s prior decision in this case is available here.
Update: Some of the comments to this post discuss the people identified as counsel of record for the Government in the CCA’s prior decision. I’ve been informed that the identified military counsel transferred out of the appellate Government section prior to this issue arising.
The Bowser decision was our #10 military justice story of 2014. The AF JAG subsequently certified Bowser to CAAF (discussed here). CAAF then rejected the Government’s initial brief and ordered it to file an amended brief addressing possible controlling or adverse authority (discussed here).