This week at SCOTUS: I’m tracking three new military cases at the Supreme Court.

First, a petition for certiorari was filed in Bales v. United States, No. 17-1583, on May 16 (discussed here). Second, a pro se petition for certiorari was filed in Condon v. United States, No. 17-0977, on May 22. In United States v. Condon, 77 M.J. 244 (C.A.A.F. Mar. 1, 2018) (CAAFlog case page), CAAF unanimously concluded that it was harmless to show the members a video of Condon’s interrogation during which he invoked his right to counsel. Finally, an extension of time to submit a petition for certiorari in Acevedo v. United States, No. 17A1287, was granted until July 6. In United States v. Acevedo, 77 M.J. 185 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 6, 2018) (CAAFlog case page), a majority of CAAF found the conviction of kidnapping by inveiglement (luring or enticing) is legally sufficient.

I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking nine cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF has completed its oral argument calendar for the term. Details about the cases reviewed by CAAF this term are available at our 2017 Term of Court page.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on June 15, 2018.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on June 28, 2018.

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.

3 Responses to “This Week in Military Justice – May 27, 2018”

  1. Vulture says:

    The fact that Alannis Morrisett can make a whole song about irony without ever mentioning a single instance of irony pales in comparison to a pro se submission to the Supreme Court over invoking your right to counsel.
     
    JAG Corps, you people are nuts.

  2. J.M. says:

    ACCA released an opinion on Manning’s appeal. https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/Apps/ACCAOpinions/ACCAOpinions.nsf/ODD/818BA3ADDACC08A28525829E0060B9B1/$FILE/oc-manning,%20be.pdf

    We squarely reject appellant’s First Amendment challenge and firmly hold that a soldier who willfully communicates information relating to the national defense “is not entitled to invoke the First Amendment as a shield to immunize his act of thievery.”

  3. stewie says:

    Nuts how? It’s not a Supreme Court level issue. They won’t take it. It’s been decided at the lower levels. While I would prefer that have not come in, it probably was pretty harmless. If you are going to take pot shots, at least explain yourself.