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

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week:

Tuesday, November 1, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., at the University of Colorado Law School, Boulder, Colorado

United States v. Bowen, No. 16-0229/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge erred in applying the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule to permit the government to introduce through the testimony of law enforcement personnel that appellant’s wife nodded her head in response to a question whether her husband “did this,” and in concluding that the prejudicial effect of this testimony was outweighed by its probative value. SeeM.R.E. 802 and 803(2); M.R.E. 403; United States v. Donaldson, 58 M.J. 477 (2003); United States v. Jones, 30 M.J. 127 (C.M.A. 1990); United States v. Arnold, 25 M.J. 129 (C.M.A. 1987); United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 (1981).

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: Two interesting CAAF grants involving the hearsay rule
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Amicus in support of Appellant
Amicus in support of Government
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, November 2, 2016, at 2 p.m., at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado:

United States v. McClour, No. 16-0455/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether AFCCA erred when it failed to grant relief where the military judge instructed the members, “if based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the accused is guilty of any offense charged, you must find him guilty,” where such an instruction is in violation of United States V. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 572-73 (1977) and there is inconsistent application between the services of the instructions relating to when members must or should convict an accused.

Case Links:
AFCCA’s opinion
Blog post: CAAF to review the closing instructions given in Air Force cases
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Friday, November 4, 2016, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Fitzpatrick, No. 20140725

I. Whether Specifications 1 and 3 of Charge I alleging indecent conduct fail to state an offense when this court has held that the alleged misconduct is not indecent conduct.

II. Whether Specification 2 of Charge I is factually and legally sufficient when the government failed to present evidence placing the charged misconduct within or near the alleged date range.

III. Whether Specifications 1 and 4 of Charge III and Specification 3 of Additional Charge III are legally and factually sufficient with respect to clause three, Article 134, UCMJ, when the government presented no evidence that the charged conduct took place within the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the united states.

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.

Comments are closed.