This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking six cases:
- Dalmazzi v. United States, No. 16-961 (argued on Jan. 16) (CAAFlog case page) (SCOTUSblog case page)
- Alexander v. United States, No. 16-9536 (held since conf. on Oct. 13)
- Abdirahman, et al. v. United States, No. 17-206 (held since conf. on Oct. 13)
- Cash, et al. v. United States, No. 17-840 (held since conf. on Feb. 16)
- Richards v. United States, No. 17-701 (held since conf. on Feb. 16)
- Gray v. United States, No. 17-7769 (pet. filed Feb. 9, resp. due Mar. 19)
This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on March 21, 2018.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still inaccessible from the public internet (discussed here). Nevertheless, the CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, March 14, 2018, at 9:45 a.m.:
United States v. Sinclair, No. 20160267
I. [WHETHER] TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE WHEN THEY FAILED TO FULLY ATTACK THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY, AND WHEN THEY FAILED TO OBJECT TO PLAINLY INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT.
[II]. WAS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL’S PRESENTENCING CASE INEFFECTIVE?
This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on April 6, 2018 (at Penn State Law).
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 will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, March 15, 2018, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Berger, NMCCA No. 201500024
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, pursuant to his plea, of violating a lawful general order by wrongfully possessing a synthetic cannabinoid compound. At the same court-martial, a panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of rape, one specification of sexual assault, one specification of aggravated sexual contact, two specifications of abusive sexual contact, and one specification of assault consummated by a battery. The members sentenced the appellant to 78 months’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered the sentence executed.
Although this court affirmed the findings and sentence, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces set aside our decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE RENDERS THE MILITARY JUDGE’S INSTRUCTION ON THE PROPER USE OF PROPENSITY EVIDENCE, UNDER MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 413, HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES V. HILLS, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016) AND ITS PROGENY, UNITED STATES V. GUARDADO, 77 M.J. 90 (C.A.A.F. 2017) AND UNITED STATES V. LUNA, 76 M.J. 477 (C.A.A.F. 2017).