This week at SCOTUS: The conference on the cert. petition in Sterling was rescheduled. A combined reply brief was filed in Dalmazzi and Cox (available here). The petition for a rehearing was denied in Howell (noted here).
A cert. petition was filed in Ortiz (available here).
An application for an extension of time to file a cert. petition was filed in Bartee v. United States, No. 16A1135. In United States v. Bartee, 76 M.J. 141 (C.A.A.F. Mar. 15, 2017) (CAAFlog case page), a majority of CAAF concluded that there was no systemic exclusion of court-martial members on the basis of rank despite the fact that the convening order duplicated an earlier order that was found to have systemically excluded.
I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking five cases:
- Sterling v. United States, No. 16-814 (pend. conf.) (CAAFlog case page) (SCOTUSblog page)
- Dalmazzi v. United States, No. 16-961 (resp. requested, due May 15) (CAAFlog case page)
- Cox, et al., v. United States, No. 16-1017 (pet. filed Feb. 21; resp. due May 15) (Dalmazzi trailers)
- Ortiz v. United States, No. 16-____ (pet. filed on May 19, 2017) (CAAFlog case page)
- Bartee v. United States, No. 16A1135 (app. for ext. of time sub. on May 19, 2017 (CAAFlog case page)
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear the final oral argument of the term on Tuesday, May 23, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:
United States v. Chikaka, 16-0586/MC (CAAFlog case page)
I. Where the military judge admitted on the merits a campaign plan to “fully operationalize the Commandant’s guidance” from the Heritage Tour, and then during sentencing admitted a picture of the Commandant and allowed Appellant’s commanding officer to testify that it was important for the members to adjudge a harsh sentence, did the lower court err in failing to find evidence of unlawful command influence sufficient to shift the burden to the Government to disprove unlawful command influence in this case?
II. Whether the military judge erred when he instructed the members, “if, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the accused is guilty of the crime 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.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, at 12:45 p.m.:
United States v. Close, No. 20140984
Issue: Whether trial defense counsel were ineffective by failing to move to suppress all of the evidence seized and subsequently examined from appellant’s off-post residence as an unreasonable search and seizure.
This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.
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.