This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Sterling was denied on June 5, 2017 (noted here). I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking four cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF has completed its oral argument calendar for the term. A detailed list of this term’s cases is available on our October 2016 Term Page.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, June 15, 2017:

United States v. Schelmetty, No. 20150488

[I]. Whether the military judge’s military rule of evidence 412 ruling was error that prevented appellant from presenting evidence of consent and constitutionally required evidence.

[II]. Whether the military judge erred by preventing the defense from introducing the remaining portions of appellant’s statements.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on June 20, 2017. According to the CCA’s docket, the argument will be a closed hearing.

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 United States v. Hutchins,  No. 200800393, on Wednesday, June 14, 2017, at 10 a.m.

In United States v. Hutchins, 72 M.J. 294 (C.A.A.F. Jun. 26, 2013) (CAAFlog case page), CAAF found that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) unlawfully re-initiated communications with Hutchins after he requested an attorney, leading to a confession that was erroneously admitted at trial, and the court reversed convictions for a false official statement, unpremeditated murder, and larceny, in connection with a 2006 kidnap-murder conspiracy in Iraq that is colloquially known as the Hamdania incident. The Government was denied reconsideration by CAAF and ultimately did not seek certiorari.

Hutchins was retried and was convicted again (CAAFlog news page). That court-martial is now pending appellate review:

Case Summary:
A panel of officer and enlisted members sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of conspiracy, one specification of false official statement, one specification of unpremeditated murder, and one specification of larceny in violation of Articles 81, 107, 118, and 121, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 881, 907, 918, 921 (2006). The members sentenced the appellant to confinement for fifteen years, reduction to pay grade E-1, a reprimand, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the findings and sentence as adjudged and, with the exception of the reprimand and all confinement in excess of 11 years, ordered the sentence executed.

I. Whether the military judge erred when he denied the defense motion to suppress evidence of conduct for which appellant had been acquitted at his first trial.

II. Whether the military judge erred when he admitted former testimony where the declarants were not unavailable and there was no similar motive for cross examination.

III. Whether the findings and sentence must be set aside and dismissed with prejudice due to unlawful command influence from the Secretary of the Navy

One Response to “This Week in Military Justice – June 12, 2017”

  1. Babu says:

    Re: Hutchins, NMCCA’s listed case summary is from the first trial.  At the retrial he was also NG to 107, confinement was time served (~6.5 years), discharge was a BCD vice DD, and there was no reduction.