Yesterday CAAF granted review of a Grostefon issue in an Army case:

No. 16-0301/AR. U.S. v. Luis G. Nieto. CCA 20150386.  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 granted on the following issue personally asserted by Appellant:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM APPELLANT’S LAPTOP COMPUTER.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

(emphasis added). This is the second Grostefon issue granted this term, the first being in United States v. Caldwell, No. 16-0091/AR (CAAFlog case page).

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

Additionally, yesterday CAAF denied the latest writ-appeal from Sergant Bergdahl:

No. 16-0339/AR. Robert B. Bergdahl v. United States. CCA 20160073.  On consideration of Appellant’s writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on a petition for a writ of prohibition to stay the proceedings and Appellant’s motion for an order requiring Appellee to file and serve a transcript, it is ordered that said writ-appeal is denied and said motion is denied as moot.

This was the fourth fifth trip to Judiciary Square by the Bergdahl defense team. The first, second, and third were all also unsuccessful.

3 Responses to “A(nother) Grostefon grant and a denial”

  1. stewie says:

    You know what they say, 8th time’s the charm.

  2. DCGoneGalt says:

    stewie:  It’s good work by the defense but the constant denial will lead to Jim Carrey handling oral argument for the next one.
     
    So, you’re telling me there’s a chance

  3. Concerned Defender says:

    Regarding ACCA’s site, and a few others, is there ANY word when it will become accessible?  Anyone have thoughts on filing a complaint?  Perhaps the Bergdahl defense team could file their 5th writ and demand the ACCA site be re-opened to the public since it’s of public interest?