This week at SCOTUS: A cert. petition was filed in Bartee v. United States, No. 17-175 on July 28, 2017. 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.

The Solicitor General received a second extension of time to respond to the cert. petition in Alexander. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking seven 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. The first oral argument date for the next term is October 10, 2017.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday, August 8, 2017, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Bales, No. 20130743 (CAAFlog news page)

I. [Appellant] is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because of the Government’s Brady violation, the Government’s fraud on the court-martial and the military judge’s exclusion of Mullah Baraan’s ties to IED evidence.

II. The military judge erred by failing to hold a Kastigar hearing to determine the extent the military judge’s mistaken disclosure of Fifth Amendment protected information affected the sentencing hearing.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: I can’t access the Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

4 Responses to “This Week in Military Justice – August 7, 2017”

  1. k fischer says:

    I don’t know for whom I feel more sorry.  The TDS lawyer whose client wouldn’t take a 10, the TC who had to argue this at Court-martial, or the Accused, Staff Sergeant Ronald E. Fosdyck, III, who shall forever be associated with the term “combat Jack.”
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

  2. a. hernandez says:

     
    Something for the dictionary for sure.  Still so much easier to lampoon US v. Sanchez in the basic course by sneezing on a book and having feathers fly out.

  3. Christian Deichert says:

    Never a dull moment with an E-6 client.  To any in the know, did this start off heading to a big chicken dinner, or was this an Article 15 turn-down?