This week at SCOTUS: Last Monday a petition for certiorari was filed in Howell v. United States, No. 16-536. In Howell v. United States, 75 M.J. 386 (C.A.A.F. Jul. 19, 2016) (CAAFlog case page), CAAF unanimously affirmed that a CCA has jurisdiction to consider a Government petition for extraordinary relief under the All Writs Act, but split 3-2 to find that the military judge erred in finding that the Government violated the Article 13 prohibition against pretrial punishment in connection with a pay dispute.

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 will hear oral argument in four cases this week:

Tuesday, October 25, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.:

United State v. Fetrow, No. 16-0500/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals committed legal error when it found that in order for conduct to constitute child molestation under Mil. R. Evid. 414, the conduct must have been an offense under the UCMJ, or federal or state law, at the time it was committed and, if offered under Mil. R. Evid. 414(d)(2)(a)-(c), that the conduct must meet the definition of an offense listed under the version of the applicable enumerated statute in effect on the day of trial.

II. Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals committed legal error when it found that the erroneous admission of two acts of indecent liberties committed by appellee on his child age daughter had a substantial influence on the members’ verdict requiring set aside of the findings and sentence.

Case Links:
AFCCA’s opinion (75 M.J. 574)
Blog post: A significant Mil. R. Evid. 414 decision
Appellant’s (Government) brief
Appellee’s brief
Appellant’s (Government) reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Dockery, No. 16-0296/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge erred by granting, over defense objection, the Government’s challenge for cause against MSgt LW.

II. Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred by finding that the military judge did not err, and by concluding that even if the military judge did err there was no prejudice, contrary to this court’s precedent in United States v. Peters, 74 M.J. 31 (C.A.A.F. 2015), United States v. Woods, 74 M.J. 238 (C.A.A.F. 2015), United States v. Nash, 71 M.J. 83 (C.A.A.F. 2012), United States v. Clay, 64 M.J. 274 (C.A.A.F. 2007), and United States v. Dale, 42 M.J. 384 (C.A.A.F. 1995).

Case Links:
AFCCA’s opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, October 26, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Gomez, No. 16-0336/CG (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge erred by permitting two complaining witnesses to testify on sentencing that appellant was responsible for their pregnancy complications with no evidence connecting his misconduct to the complications.

Case Links:
CGCCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Wilson, No. 16-0267/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge erred in denying the defense motion for appropriate relief under Rule for Court-Martial 917 where the military judge improperly applied Article 130, housebreaking, to a motor pool.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on November 4, 2016.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on November 17, 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.

One Response to “This Week in Military Justice – October 23, 2016”

  1. Vulture says:

    There is a story in the LA Times about a MJ case in Korea that gets into the details of “maybe this not that” in cross.  The LA Times has come under some scrutiny, under Bergdahl I think, so take it for what it is worth.
    http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-korea-military-justice-20161028-story.html