This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:

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

The 2018 term begins on October 1, 2018. Nevertheless, this week CAAF will hear the first two oral arguments of next term:

Wednesday, September 12, 2018, at 3 p.m., at the Keenan Ceremonial Courtroom, 500 Pearl Street, New York:

United States v. Eugene, No. 18-0209/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether Appellant’s request to Criminal Investigation Command (CID) that his cell phone be returned was a withdrawal of the third party consent to search given by Appellant’s wife in Appellant’s absence.

II. Whether the Army Court erred in determining the applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine where (1) the CID agents failed to take any steps to obtain a warrant and (2) the case took a “dead-end” until the warrantless search.

Case Links:
ACCA decision
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview (in progress)

Thursday, September 13, 2018, at 11 a.m., at the Fordham University School of Law in New York:

United States v. Criswell, No. 18-0091/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying a defense motion to suppress the accusing witness’s in-court identification of Appellant.

Case Links:
ACCA decision
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Law student amicus in support of appellant
Law student amicus in support of the appellee (Gov’t Div.)
Blog post: Argument preview (in progress)

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday, September 11, 2018, at 12:30 p.m., at Pepperdine University School of Law, in Malibu, CA:

United States v. Beer, No. 20160659

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge abused his discretion by summarily denying the panel’s request for additional evidence.

II. Whether appellant’s conviction of signing a false official statement in violation of Article 107, UCMJ, is legally and factually sufficient.

III. Whether appellant’s sentence is inappropriately severe.

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 website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on October 2, 2018.

Leave a Reply