This week at SCOTUS: SCOTUS denied cert. in Herrmann on November 27, 2017. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking eight cases:
- Dalmazzi v. United States, No. 16-961 (cert. granted Sep. 28; oral arg. on Jan. 16) (CAAFlog case page) (SCOTUSblog case page)
- Alexander v. United States, No. 16-9536 (held since conf. on Oct. 13)
- Bartee v. United States, No. 17-175 (resp. requested, due Dec. 6)
- Abdirahman, et al. v. United States, No. 17-206 (held since conf. on Oct. 13)
- Tso v. United States, No. 17-479 (pet. filed Sep. 28; resp. due Dec. 6)
- Herrmann v. United States, No. 17-593 (petition denied on Nov. 27)
- Cash v. United States, No. 17A415 (ext. of time to file granted to Dec. 22)
- Richards v. United States, No. 17-701 (pet. filed Nov. 9; resp. due. Dec. 14)
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in four cases this week:
Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:
United States v. Katso, No.17-0326/AF (CAAFlog case page)
I. Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it held that United States v. Miller, 47 M.J. 352 (C.A.A.F. 1997) required the government to hold a continued confinement hearing within 7 days of the Judge Advocate General’s decision on certification.
II. Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it found that government’s failure to hold a continued confinement hearing within 7 days of the Judge Advocate General’s decision on certification automatically resulted in a day-for-day sentencing credit.
III. Whether Appellee was prejudiced when the government failed to hold a continued confinement hearing within 7 days of certification.
United States v. Chisum, No.17-0199/AF (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the military judge’s failure to conduct an in camera review of the mental health records of AB AK and AB CR deprived Appellant of his right to confront the sole witnesses against him in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.
• AFCCA opinion (75 M.J. 943)
• Blog post: AFCCA obtains & reviews 2 set of mental health records
Appellant’s brief (sealed)
• Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) answer (redacted)
Appellant’s reply brief (sealed)
• Amicus brief (Protect Our Defenders) in support of A.F. Gov’t App. Div.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:
United States v. Harpole, No.17-0171/CG (CAAFlog case page)
I. Whether the military judge abused her discretion when she allowed a victim advocate to testify as to Appellant’s privileged communications, in violation of M.R.E. 514.
II. Whether the trial defense counsel were ineffective by failing to suppress Appellant’s unwarned admissions. These admissions were made to YNI NIPP when she knew he was a suspect and under investigation. She intended to report these admissions to the command and questioned him without advising him of his Art. 31 UCMJ, rights.
III. Upon request by the defense counsel and using a defense-drafted instruction, should the military judge have provided the members with an explanation of the term “incapable”?
United States v. Honea III, No.17-0347/AF (CAAFlog case page)
I. Immediately before the defense rested its case, the military judge invited the parties’ attention to R.C.M. 910, and directed the defense to provide the military judge with a draft specification of assault consummated by a battery. Did the lower court err when it held that the defense’s compliance with the military judge’s directive constituted a de facto defense request to modify the specification pursuant to R.C.M. 603 where there is no evidence that either the defense or the convening authority were aware the charge was being amended pursuant to R.C.M. 603?
II. The military judge dismissed Specification 2 of Charge II, abusive sexual contact by causing bodily harm, for failure to state an offense, but she allowed the government to proceed to trial on the purported lesser included offense of assault consummated by a battery. Did the military judge err?
This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 25, 2018. The argument will be held at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, 25 East Pearson Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.
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 at the CCA.
This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.