This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court.
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week. Both arguments will occur at law schools in Wisconsin, as part of the court’s Project Outreach:
Tuesday, April 14, 2015, at noon, at Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
United States v. Plant, No. 15-0011/AF (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the finding of guilty to Charge V and its specification (child endangerment) because the evidence failed to prove Appellant’s alcohol use alone amounted to culpable negligence that endangered the welfare of L.P.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015, at noon, at the University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison, Wisconsin:
United States v. Keefauver, No. 15-0029/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the Army Court erred in finding that the protective sweep was appropriate in total.
• ACCA opinion (73 M.J. 846)
• Blog post: Army CCA affirms a protective sweep
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Government) brief
• Amicus brief in support of Appellant (law students)
• Amicus brief in support of Appellee (law students)
• Blog post: Argument preview
This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on April 23, 2015.
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 Tuesday, April 14, 2015, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Montalvo
Case summary: A panel of officer and enlisted members, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specification of rape in violation of Article 120, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920. The members sentenced the appellant to reduction to paygrade E-1, confinement for nine years, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the dishonorable discharge, ordered the sentence executed.
Issue: Did the military judge abuse his discretion in denying the defense’s continuance request and is Appellant entitled to relief only if the court also finds the error materially prejudiced a substatintial right of the Appellant’s?