This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on April 5, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still not accessible to the public (discussed here). I’m not aware of any scheduled oral arguments at the Army CCA.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

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.

3 Responses to “This Week in Military Justice – March 27, 2016”

  1. Ed says:

    I have asked my congressman to look into why the ACCA has been offline to the public for such a long period of time. Maybe if others do so it will help.

  2. Concerned Defender says:

    Ed, that’s a great idea.  I’ll do likewise and encourage others to as well.  It’s been down far too long, along with JAGCNET and the ARBA/ABCMR sites. 

  3. jd says:

    Case Name:
    US v. Hennis
    Case No:
    20100304

    Counsel for Appellant:
    Potter/Yoder
    Panel:
    1

    Counsel for Appellee:
    Walker/Dunham
    Judges:
    En Banc

     
    Notice is hereby given that a hearing in this case before the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting en banc, has been set for Thursday, 5 May 2016 at 1000 hours.  Argument will be heard on the following issues: II – A. THE COURT-MARTIAL LACKED JURISDICTION TO TRY MASTER SERGEANT HENNIS FOR THE CHARGED OFFENSES BECAUSE HE WAS NOT LAWFULLY ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY, UNDER ARTICLE 2(A)(1), UCMJ, AND THEREFORE, PERSONAL JURISDICTION DID NOT ATTACH TO MASTER SERGEANT HENNIS’ COURT-MARTIAL RENDERING THE COURT-MARTIAL VOID. VI. THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENSE A NEW TRIAL PREDICATED ON THE GOVERNMENT’S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE NORTH CAROLINA “SWECKER/WOLF” REPORT, IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE REQUESTED PURSUANT TO A SPECIFIC DEFENSE DISCOVERY REQUEST THAT WOULD HAVE LIKELY CAST DOUBT ON THE PROCEEDINGS. VII – B. THE MILITARY JUDGE, BY FAILING TO DISMISS THREE PANEL MEMBERS FOR CAUSE BASED ON ACTUAL BIAS AND IMPLIED BIAS MANIFESTED BY A PREDISPOSITION TO ADJUDGE DEATH, AN INELASTIC OPINION AGAINST CONSIDERING MITIGATING EVIDENCE ON SENTENCING, VISCERAL REACTIONS TO THE CHARGED ACTS, PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS OF GUILT, AND A BIAS TOWARD DEFENSE COUNSEL DENIED MASTER SERGEANT HENNIS A FAIR TRIAL. VIII – D. THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE INSTRUCTED THE PANEL THAT THEY NEEDED TO CONTINUE TO VOTE UNTIL THEY REACHED EITHER ELEVEN VOTES FOR LIFE OR FOURTEEN VOTES FOR DEATH. SPECIFIED ISSUE I. WHETHER THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS) [ASA(M&RA)] POSSESSED AUTHORITY TO ORDER APPELLANT TO ACTIVE DUTY UNDER 10 U.S.C. § 688, WHERE THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY DID NOT ISSUE SAID ORDER. SPECIFIED ISSUE II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN HE INSTRUCTED THE PANEL THAT APPELLANT, A RETIREE RECALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY, COULD BE SENTENCED TO ANY PUNISHMENT IN ADDITION TO CONFINEMENT AND DEATH.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SLOAN, 35 M.J. 4 (C.M.A. 1992).