Earlier this month – in an action noted here – SCOTUS remanded the case of Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Michael Briggs, who was convicted of rape in 2014 for an offense that allegedly occurred in 2005. We noted the conviction in this post. The Air Force CCA affirmed in 2016 (link to slip op.). CAAF summarily affirmed in May, 2017.

The Court remanded the case for CAAF to consider it in light of United States v. Mangahas, 77 M.J. 220 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 6, 2018) (CAAFlog case page), in which CAAF reinterpreted the statute of limitations for the offense of rape of an adult.

Yesterday CAAF issued an order agreeing to do that, and more:

No. 16-0711/AF. U.S. v. Michael J.D. Briggs. CCA 38730. On further consideration in light of the remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, it is ordered that the above-entitled case is granted review on the following issues:

I. DOES THE 2006 AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 43, UCMJ, CLARIFYING THAT RAPE IS AN OFFENSE WITH NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO OFFENSES COMMITTED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE AMENDMENT BUT FOR WHICH THE THEN EXTANT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD NOT EXPIRED?

II. CAN APPELLANT SUCCESSFULLY RAISE A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL?

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

3 Responses to “CAAF grants review in a SCOTUS remand”

  1. Michael Lowrey says:

    Didn’t AFCCA just answer the second question last month in its published opinion in Collins?

  2. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Were I counsel for appellant, I would challenge the conclusory statement in the first issue that assumes that Article 43 was “clarified” and not “changed.”  Very sloppy on CAAF’s part.
     
    -CS
     

  3. David A. says:

    CAAF’s second issue was my first observation in my comment to the CAAFlog of August 6, 2018: “Was the statute of limitations defense raised at trial? Before the CCA it does not seem that it was.” I am uncertain of the chronological juxtaposition of Mangahas and Briggs, but Mangahas was pending when Briggs was under review, and the failure to raise the issue may give rise to ineffective of trial and appellate counsel.

Leave a Reply