This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Sullivan was distributed for conference on September 26. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF has completed its oral argument calendar for the term. Details about this term’s cases are available on our 2015 Term of Court page.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on July 12, 2016.

This week at the AFCCA: I’m unable to access the Air Force CCA’s website.

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 will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday, June 21, 2016, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Ellis

Case summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of rape, two specifications of sexual assault, three specifications of abusive sexual contact, and three specifications of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Articles 120 and 128, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 928 (2012). The members sentenced appellant to two years’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered it executed. The issue to be argued before this Court is as follows:

Issue: WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING THE APPELLANT HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSERS ABOUT VICTIM/VICTIM ADVOCATE DISCUSSIONS PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, U.S. CONST., M.R.E. 608(C) AND M.R.E. 514(D)(3).

8 Responses to “This Week in Military Justice – June 19, 2016”

  1. The Silver Fox says:

    We need a nice, reasoned CAAFlog discussion of Utah v. Strieff.

  2. Vulture says:

    I am going to have to sit this one out.  I am too in love with Sonya.

  3. K fischer says:

    TSF,
     
    Pay your traffic tickets and don’t possess meth.  Or, at least do one of those things.  That way you go to jail for one night for the traffic warrant until you make bail, or if you get caught with meth, you don’t pop up with an active warrant to cure the taint of the illegal stop and you get your conviction kicked.

  4. The Silver Fox says:

    I’m not sure what to do with your lack of indignation.

  5. k fischer says:

    TSF,
     
    I could tell you what you could do with my lack of indignation, but that would require indignation, which for some reason I lack under these facts.  Plus, I wouldn’t stay true to the concept of reason and accountability I still hope society will one day expect of inebriated females who drink and engage in intercourse. 
     
    You see, TSF, if I lack empathy for an AF NCO who fraternizes with two Airmen at her apartment, drinks wine, watches movies, cuddles with one of them, and goes back to her bedroom with said cuddlee where moans of pleasure are heard by the third wheel Airman, instead of screams of “Help me!!!!!”, wherein after she makes a claim of rape even though at some point she was reported to be on top, and the charges were dismissed, only to be revived again because of UCI, which ultimately and prophetically resulted in the Airman being acquitted of all charges, then I would be a hypocrite to have empathy for this guy who doesn’t pay his tickets, buys meth at a drug house with money he should have used to pay aforementioned tickets, and gets caught with meth by a cop casing the drug house while being patted down during his arrest for which the cop had a valid bench warrant.  I guess the cop is supposed to allow the arrestee to go back to his home to give him the opportunity to purge any illegal contraband on his person, follow him, then knock on his door and arrest him, then pat him down?   Whether it is a bench warrant for failure to pay a parking ticket, or a bench warrant for someone who skipped town on rape charges, it is still an order by a judge to arrest someone.  Immediately.
     
    How’s that for indignation?

  6. The Silver Fox says:

    The problem with the opinion, however, is that the police officer didn’t even have reasonable suspicion to stop and question the subject.  And the discovery of the warrant came as a direct result of that illegal stop.  Therefore, it seems to me the Justices were too forgiving of the police here. 

  7. k fischer says:

    TSF,
     
    Dogs and cats are sleeping together, or perhaps foxes and bobcats, when you are defending the accused and I am defending the cops. 
     
    The defendant had a valid warrant for his arrest.  So, I suppose they could have said upon realizing that they illegally stopped him and they had a valid arrest warrant, “Okay, you are free to go.”  Then, when he took three steps, they could have stopped him again and said, “Are you Mr. Strieff?  Well, we have a valid warrant to arrest you.  So, we are going to have to pat you down.  Oh look!  I just pulled a bag of meth out of your pocket.  You are under arrest for possession.”  That seems like a pretty absurd result.

  8. The Silver Fox says:

    That’s a fair point and a good example.  But, what worries me here is that this doesn’t appear to be mere negligence on behalf of the officer.  He acted deliberately despite knowing that he didn’t have reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop on Mr. Strieff.  Nor does the Court’s holding seem to be limited only to instances of police negligence.  And, in reality, it will be very difficult for a defense counsel to show in a motion hearing that the police have a policy of deliberately stopping and conducting a warrant query (without reasonable articulable suspicion) on random individuals.     
     
    Would I go as far as Justice Sotomayor in my criticism?  No.  Justice Kagan?  Yes.