Post edited to reflect rescheduled oral arguments.
This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Howell was distributed for conference on March 24, 2017. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking four cases:
- Howell v. United States, No. 16-536 (pend. conf. on Mar. 24) (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 (resp. requested, due Mar. 24) (CAAFlog case page)
- Cox, et al., v. United States, No. 16-1017 (pet. filed Feb. 21; resp. due Mar. 27)
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in four cases this week (the Wednesday arguments will occur in the afternoon):
Wednesday, March 15, 2017, at 1 p.m.:
United States v. Richards, No. 16-0727/AF (CAAFlog case page)
I. Whether the panel of AFCCA that heard appellant’s case was improperly constituted.
II. Whether the 9 November 2011 search authorization was overbroad in failing to limit the dates of the communications being searched, and if so, whether the error was harmless.
United States v. Gurczynski, No. 17-0139/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the military judge erred in suppressing evidence of child pornography a digital forensic examiner discovered during a search for appellee’s communications with a child victim.
• ACCA opinion
• Appellant’s brief (Army App. Gov’t Div.)
• Appellee’s brief
• Appellant’s (Army App. Gov’t Div.) reply brief
• Amicus brief: N.M. App. Gov’t Div.
• Blog post: Argument preview
Thursday, March 16, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:
United States v. Reese, No. 17-0028/CG (CAAFlog case page)
I. Whether the military judge erred in allowing the government to make a major change to a specification after the complaining witness’s testimony did not support the offense as originally charged.
II. Whether the specification of the additional charge fails to state an offense where the terminal element failed to allege words of criminality and where the alleged conduct fell within a listed offense of Article 134, UCMJ.
United States v. Hendrix, No. 16-0731/AR (CAAFlog case page)
I. Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he denied a defense motion to suppress related to the identification of the appellant during a voice lineup.
II. Whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying appellant’s motion to compel an expert consultant, EP, in the field of audio forensic science and voice identification.
This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on March 21, 2017.
This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on March 28, 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 next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on March 24, 2017.