This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Dalmazzi. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:
- Howell v. United States, No. 16-536 (resp. requested, due Feb. 22) (CAAFlog case page)
- Sterling v. United States, No. 16-814 (resp. requested, due Mar. 15) (CAAFlog case page) (SCOTUSblog page)
- Dalmazzi v. United States, No. 16-961 (cert. pet. filed Feb. 2) (CAAFlog case page)
This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument date at CAAF is February 28, 2017 (though no arguments are presently scheduled).
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one cases this week, on Monday, February 13, 2017, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Battles, No. 20140399
Issue: WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED [BY] FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE PANEL ON THE MENS REA NECESSARY TO MAKE APPELLANT’S CONDUCT CRIMINAL [TO THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE I].
This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on March 2, 2017.
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 February 15, 2017, at noon. The argument will be heard at the George Washington University Law School:
United States v. Dinger, No. 201600108
Case summary: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant pursuant to his pleas of two specifications of committing indecent acts, one specification of attempting to produce child pornography, two specifications of wrongfully making an indecent visual recording, and one specification of possessing child pornography, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920 (2006), and Articles 80, 120c, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 920c, and 934 (2012). The military judge sentenced the appellant to nine years’ confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, but suspended confinement over 96 months pursuant to a pre-trial agreement.
I. WHETHER COURTS-MARTIAL HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER MILITARY RETIREES IN LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING IN BARKER V. KANSAS, 503 U.S. 594, 605 (1992), THAT FOR TAX PURPOSES, MILITARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS ARE NOT CURRENT COMPENSATION FOR REDUCED SERVICES?
II. WHETHER CONGRESS’ STATEMENT IN 10 U.S.C. § 6332 THAT THE TRANSFER OF A MEMBER OF THE NAVAL SERVICE TO A RETIRED STATUS “IS CONCLUSIVE FOR ALL PURPOSES” PRECLUDES THE ISSUANCE OF A PUNITIVE DISCHARGE TO A RETIREE?