This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:
- Sullivan v. United States, No. 15-0186 (pend. conf. on Sep. 26) (CAAFlog case page)
- Akbar v. United States, No. 15-1257 (pend. conf. on Sep. 26) (CAAFlog case page)
- Caldwell v. United States, No. 16-209 (pend. conf. on Sep. 26) (CAAFlog case page)
This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on October 11, 2016.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in three cases this week. One of these arguments, on Friday, will occur at Boston University School of Law:
Wednesday, September 21, 2016, at 10 a.m.: United States v. Sosa, No. 20140869
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE’S FAILURE TO PROPERLY INSTRUCT ON THE ELEMENTS OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE DENIED THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE HIV STATUS OF SPC SS BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHED ITS PROBATIVE VALUE AND BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF SPC SS’S HIV?
Wednesday, September 21, 2016, at 1 p.m.: United States v. Mazzie, No. 20140923
THE ASSIGNED ERROR: WHETHER APPELLANT SUFFERED MATERIAL PREJUDICE TO HIS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WHERE TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE FACTS OF AN ARMY REGULATION 15-6 INVESTIGATION OF A KEY GOVERNMENT WITNESS PRIOR TO TRIAL, IN VIOLATION OF BRADY V. MARYLAND AND RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 701.
THE SPECIFIED ISSUE: WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AT TRIAL WHEN HIS COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE OF GOVERNMENT WITNESSES, FAILED TO UTILIZE ANY IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GOVERNMENT WITNESSES, AND FAILED TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE ARMY REGULATION 15-6 INVESTIGATION INTO MS. DENISE LYONS OR FILE A MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE AVAILABLE PARTS OF THE INVESTIGATION PRIOR TO TRIAL.
Friday, September 23, 2016, at 10:30 a.m., at Boston University School of Law: United States v. Bostik, No. 20140880
Issue: IN DENYING THE DEFENSE’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS, DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR WHEN HE FOUND THAT PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BOSTICK RE-INITIATED THE CID INTERVIEW AFTER HE INITIALLY INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL?
This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on October 7, 2016.
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.