Last week CAAF granted review but ordered no briefs in an Army case:
No. 18-0107/AR. U.S. v. Jameson T. Hazelbower. CCA 20150335. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE’S CONSIDERATION OF CHARGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT TO PROVE PROPENSITY TO COMMIT THE SAME CHARGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE FOUND THE “PROBATIVE WEIGHT” OF SUCH EVIDENCE WAS “HIGH.”
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
This is the second CAAF grant in this case.
The Army CCA’s first decision applied the CCA’s decision in Hukill (discussed here) and affirmed. CAAF then granted review in Hazelbower (noted here). Then CAAF issued its decision in United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. May 2, 2017) (CAAFlog case page), reversing the CCA. A summary remand in Hazelbower followed (noted here).
On remand, the Army CCA found the prosecution’s case strong enough to overcome any prejudice from the improper use of propensity, and it again affirmed the findings.