CAAF granted review in two cases on Friday. The first is a Navy case:

No. 17-0480/NA. U.S. v. Raiden J. Andrews. CCA 201600208. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

THE LOWER COURT FOUND SEVERE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. THEN IT AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS AND SENTENCE, GIVING ITS IMPRIMATUR TO THE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN APPELLANT’S CASE. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR?

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

The NMCCA’s opinion is available here. The CCA found that the trial counsel committed prosecutorial misconduct in the form of improper argument by calling the appellant a liar, mischaracterizing the appellant’s statements to NCIS, asserting that the defense counsel did not believe the appellant, and misstating the law. But, applying the plain error test – because “the civilian defense counsel did not contemporaneously object,” slip op. at 7, something that the Army court recently held constitutes waiver of any error – the CCA found the improper arguments to be harmless.

The second is an Air Force case that is a Mitchell (CAAFlog case page) trailer:

No. 17-0504/AF. U.S. v. Hank W. Robinson. CCA 38942. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM APPELLANT’S CELL PHONE.

II. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING APPELLANT WAIVED OBJECTIONS REGARDING INVESTIGATORS’ EXCEEDING THE SCOPE OF APPELLANT’S CONSENT.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

I mentioned Robinson last week in this post, and I discussed the CCA’s opinion (available here) in this post.

3 Responses to “Two new CAAF grants”

  1. Jason Grover says:

    Is there a different standard of review for “severe prosecutorial misconduct” and “run-of-the-mill prosecutorial misconduct”?

  2. Ed says:

    As to Andrews the lesson is that if there is misconduct you may have to object every time it takes place. I would suggest you make it clear when objecting that it is misconduct so the panel does not think you are purposely obstructing. Don’t worry at all how upset the MJ becomes.

  3. Philip D. Cave says:

    @Ed.
     
    It is sad, but required, that the defense counsel police the trial counsel, and trial counsel do not have to police themselves.