This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:
- Sullivan v. United States, No. 15-0186 (pend. conf. on Sep. 26) (CAAFlog case page)
- Akbar v. United States, No. 15-1257 (pet. filed on Apr. 7; resp. due July 8) (CAAFlog case page)
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 next scheduled oral argument at the Coast Guard CCA is on Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at at a.m.
This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, June 30, 2016, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Darnall
Case summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of four specifications of conspiracy; one specification of making a false official statement; twelve specifications of importing, possessing with the intent to distribute, distributing, and manufacturing controlled substances; four specifications of possessing, distributing, and importing controlled substance analogues; and seven specifications of using a communication facility in furtherance of a conspiracy in violation of Articles 81, 107, 112a, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 881, 907, 912a, and 934 (2012). The members sentenced appellant to reduction in pay grade to E-1, six years’ confinement, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the adjudged sentence, suspended confinement in excess of five years, and, except for the dishonorable discharge, ordered the sentence executed.
Issue: THE MILITARY JUDGE HELD THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A CID AGENT TO ARREST APPELLANT. WAS THIS AN ERRONEOUS RULING, AND IF SO, SHOULD ALL EVIDENCE FLOWING FROM THE APPREHENSION HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AT TRIAL?