This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Dinger. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in three cases this week:

Tuesday, October 23, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Hamilton, No. 18-0135/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Are victim impact statements admitted pursuant to R.C.M. 1001A evidence subject to the Military Rules of Evidence?

II. Whether the military judge erred in admitting prosecution exhibits 4, 5, and 6.

Case Links:
AFCCA decision
Blog post: CCA opinion analysis
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Air Force App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Hale, No. 18-0162/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Granted Issues:
I. The lower court found as a matter of law that personal jurisdiction does not exist outside of the hours of inactive-duty training. The lower court proceeded to find personal jurisdiction existed over Appellant because he was “staying” with his in-laws. Was this error?

II. Whether the lower court erred when it concluded the military judge correctly instructed the members they could convict Appellant for conduct “on or about” the dates alleged in each specification.

Specified Issue:
III. Whether the lower court erred in concluding the court-martial had jurisdiction over specification 2 of additional charge 1, as modified to affirm the lesser included offense of attempted larceny.

Case Links:
AFCCA decision
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Air Force App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, October 24, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Tucker, No. 18-0254/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army Court erred in holding that the minimum mens rea required under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, UCMJ, to separate wrongful from innocent conduct is simple negligence.

Case Links:
• Prior CAAFlog case page
ACCA decision
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Deason, No. 20150674

Issue: Whether the military judge abused her discretion when she denied the defense motion to suppress Specialist Deason’s 1 September 2014 statement to CID.

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

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, October 25, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. The Argument will occur at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, 3600 John McCormack Road NE, Washington, DC:

United States v. Jennings, No. 201700241

Case Summary: A panel of officers sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of six specifications under Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of solicitation under Article 134, UCMJ. The members sentenced the appellant to three years’ 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.

Issues:
[I]. Whether the government failed to disprove the defense of entrapment—that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service Agent did not induce the Appellant or that the Appellant was predisposed to commit this crime.

[II]. The government cannot use liberty risk as a subterfuge for restriction. Here, the government held the appellant on liberty risk, which restricted him to base, for 732 days (513 days prior to arraignment). Did the government’s actions constitute restriction under Rule for Courts-Martial 304(a)(2) and trigger Rule for Courts-Martial 707?

[IV]. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a servicemember the right to effective assistance of counsel. The appellant spent 732 days in restriction, which started the government’s Rule for Courts-Martial 707, 120-day clock. Were trial defense counsel deficient by failing to assert the appellant’s speedy trial rights?

Comments are closed.