This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General filed a response opposing the cert. petition in Abdirahman, et al. (the Ortiz trailer cases). The SG also received an extension of time to file the requested response in Bartee, to October 30. Finally, the Court will consider the petitions in Dalmazzi, Cox, and Ortiz on Monday. Steve Vladeck – who is counsel of record for all three petitions – published this post on Friday discussing the cases and issues.
I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking seven cases:
- Dalmazzi v. United States, No. 16-961 (pend. conf. on Sep. 25) (CAAFlog case page)
- Cox, et al., v. United States, No. 16-1017 (pend. conf. on Sep. 25) (Dalmazzi trailers)
- Ortiz v. United States, No. 16-1423 (pend. conf. on Sep. 25) (CAAFlog case page)
- Alexander v. United States, No. 16-9536 (pet. dktd Jun. 13; resp. filed Sep. 13)
- Tso v. United States, No. 17A40 (ext. of time to file granted to Sep. 29)
- Bartee v. United States, No. 17-175 (resp. requested, due Oct. 30)
- Abdirahman, et al. v. United States, No 17-_206 (pet. filed Jul. 31; resp. filed Sep. 18)
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 Wednesday, September 27, 2017, at noon. The argument will occur at the USC Gould School of Law, 699 Exposition Blvd, Los Angeles, California:
United States v. Morales, No. 20150498
I. Whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for determining existence of probable cause to believe appellant had committed the crime of indecent viewing?
II. Whether the magistrate’s search authorization was overbroad?
III. Whether a photograph constitutes “digital communication” such that the digital forensic examiner properly reviewed photographs on appellant’s phone?
IV. Whether the military judge abused her discretion by denying the motion to suppress results of the digital forensic examination?
This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on October 24, 2017. The argument will be heard at the Florida International University College of Law.
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 one case this week, on Wednesday, September 27, 2017, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Chamblin, NMCCA No. 201500388
Case Summary: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted the appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of willful dereliction of duty, two specifications of violating a lawful general order, and one specification of wrongfully urinating on deceased enemy combatants in violation of Articles 92 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892 and 934 (2008). The military judge sentenced the appellant to thirty days’ confinement, sixty days’ restriction, reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $500 pay per month for six months, and a $2,000 fine. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, the convening authority disapproved the sixty days’ restriction, $2,000 fine, and reduction below pay grade E-5, suspended execution of confinement and forfeiture of $500 pay beyond one month, and then ordered the sentence executed.
I. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), did the Government violate Staff Sergeant Chamblin’s constitutional right to due process when it failed to provide evidence of unlawful command influence that was favorable and material evidence?
II. Whether the Commandant of the Marine Corps and his subordinate personnel exerted unlawful command influence and/or created the appearance of unlawful command influence over Staff Sergeant Chamblin’s court-martial.