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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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.