Significant military justice event this week: The Military Officers Association of America is hosting a Military to Civilian Success for Legal Professionals event on Tuesday, December 15, 2015, at the Ritz-Carlton, Pentagon City, 1250 S Hayes St, Arlington VA 22202.

Additionally, this Friday is the deadline to submit comments regarding the 2016 proposed changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial (discussed here).

This week at SCOTUS: A cert. petition was filed in Schloff v. United States, No. 15-0294 on December 11, 2015. Last term, in United States v. Schloff, 74 M.J. 312 (C.A.A.F. Jul 16, 2015) (CAAFlog case page), a sharply divided CAAF concluded that sexual contact, as defined by Article 120(g)(2) (2012), includes both body-to-body contact and object-to-body contact.

In other cases, the Solicitor General waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Arness on on December 10. The cert. petition in Sullivan is scheduled for conference on January 8.

I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking four cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on January 12, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, December 16, 2015, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Piccirillo, No. 20140897

Specified issue: As an aider and abettor, why does appellant not “stand in the shoes” of Specialist KD? Specialist KD perpetrated the burning of his own automobile and, therefore, could not be convicted of simple arson.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on January 22, 2016.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

2 Responses to “This Week in Military Justice – December 13, 2015”

  1. Phil Cave says:

    Schloff v. United States, petition for a writ of certiorari.

  2. DCGoneGalt says:

    I hope Schloff gets reviewed, taking “object” out of the definition of sexual contact in 2012 and inserting the closing sentence of “may be accomplished with any part of the body” has to mean something.