CAAF’s docket for last week has two interesting entries.

First, the court granted review of an Army case:

No. 16-0184/AR. U.S. v. Bradley T. Fontenelle. CCA 20140424. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION FOR THE SPECIFICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE IN THAT APPELLANT’S COMMUNICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE “INDECENT LANGUAGE.”

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

The Army CCA’s website is still not publicly accessible, so I don’t have a link to the CCA’s opinion (assuming it wasn’t a summary disposition). I will post the opinion if someone with access will email it to zack@caaflog.com

Next CAAF docketed a writ-appeal from what I assume is an alleged victim:

No. 16-0398/MC. EV, Appellant v. E.H. Robinson, Jr., Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps, Military Judge, Appellee and David A. Martinez, Real Party In Interest. Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date.

5 Responses to “A CAAF grant and a writ-appeal by an apparent alleged victim”

  1. Dew_Process says:

    @ the Writ Appeal — Why should an alleged “victim” get to hide their identity via use of only their initials, while the alleged perpetrator who is presumed innocent at this stage, get publicly named and shamed?  If it’s good for one, it should be good for both regardless of which style you use.

  2. k fischer says:

    Dew,  if the alleged vics ‘ identity was known , then ex boyfriends or hook ups might come out of the woodwork and report that she is not honest, threatened them making a false allegation against them, discuss her sexual proclivities and how her statement that “I would never have sex with a black guy/do anal/engage in rough sex etc. is completely false.  So, states pass laws to ensure that these individuals’ identities remain unknown to aid in the gov’ment getting a conviction by misleading the jury with this alleged Vic who the panel will never get to know.

  3. DCGoneGalt says:

    I don’t see a conspiracy, although I think the privacy laws and journalism norm should apply to all victims of crime who wish to remain anonymous.  I would have no problem with a law preventing the government releasing the names of accused but I cannot fathom a journalism norm arising whereby the name of an accused at a public trial is not released.  Where I have a problem is with journalists continuing to refuse to use real names even after an allegation has been shown to be debunked, i.e. Rolling Stone’s “Jackie”.  [While “Jackie” has  already been identified online, respectable media sources (the ones that started the witchhunt and acted as SJW cheerleaders for the allegation) still refuse to use her name.

  4. k fischer says:

    DCGG,
     
    You don’t see a conspiracy?????  Stop by my office for a personalized tin foil hat and a nice cup of red pill flavored kool-aid….hater….