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 four cases this week; three on Tuesday, April 28, 2015, and one on Wednesday, April 29, 2015:
Tuesday, April 28, 2015:
United States v. Murphy, No. 14-0767/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that ammunition constitutes an explosive for purposes of the sentence aggravator of Articles 108 and 121, UCMJ.
• ACCA opinion (73 M.J. 699)
• Blog post: The Army CCA finds that ammunition is an explosive
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Government) brief
• Blog post: Argument preview
United States v. Stellato, No. 15-0315/AR (CAAFlog case page)
I. Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred as a matter of law in concluding there was no discovery violation and reversing the military judge’s remedy of dismissal.
II. Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals applied an erroneous view of the law in requiring the military judge to find “willful ignorance, willful suppression, or other misconduct” as a condition precedent for dismissal with prejudice for discovery violations.
United States v. Schloff, No. 15-0294/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the Army court erred in expanding the definition of a “sexual contact” to a touch accomplished by an object contrary to the plain language of Article 120(g)(2).
Wednesday, April 29, 2015:
United States v. McIntosh, No. 14-0685/AF (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether Appellant received ineffective assistance when defense counsel failed to introduce evidence which strongly corroborated the defense theory that the allegations in this case were false.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Fruday, May 1, 2015, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Thomas, No. 20130099
I. Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he denied the defense motion for the appointment of an expert consultant/witness to assist the defense in developing and presenting evidence that would support the lack of voluntariness and whether appellant made a false confession to the charged sexual assault offenses?
II. Whether the military judge committed prejudicial error when he denied the defense motion to suppress the appellant’s confession due to lack of voluntariness?
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 Friday, May 1, 2015, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Pease
Case summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of three specifications of sexual assault, one specification of abusive sexual contact, and two specifications of fraternization in violation of a lawful general order, violations of Articles 120 and 92, UCMJ. The appellant was found not guilty of one specification of sexual assault. He was sentenced to six years’ confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and, except for the dishonorable discharge, ordered it executed.
I. Whether the military judge erred in failing to give the requested defense instruction on competence?
II. Whether appellant’s constitutional right to due process was violated when he was convicted of violating Article 120 which is unconstitutionally vague?