This week at SCOTUS: Larrabee filed this reply brief. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.

United States v. Smith, No. 18-0211/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge abused her discretion in denying a defense motion to suppress evidence obtained from Appellant’s cellular telephone because access to the contents of the iPhone would not have been available but for the government’s illegal search and the good faith doctrine would be inapplicable under the circumstances.

II. Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in deeming the insufficient nexus issue waived because there was no deliberate decision not to present a ground for potential relief but instead only a failure to succinctly articulate the grounds upon which relief was sought.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Perkins, No. 18-0365/MC (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether this Court’s holding in United States v. Carter as applied by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in this case, instead of the plain reading of MRE 311(c) this Court applied in United States v. Hoffman, controls in analyzing the applicability of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

II. Whether the military judge erred in denying a defense motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of Appellant’s home.

Case Links:
NMCCA opinion (75 M.J. 120)
Blog post: JAG certifies
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (N-M App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, January 23, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.

United States v. Hutchins, No. 18-0234/MC (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge erred when he denied the defense motion to suppress evidence of conduct for which Appellant had been acquitted at his first trial.

Case Links:
NMCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (N-M App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Meakin, No. 18-0339/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether Appellant’s conviction for engaging in anonymous, private, and consensual communications with an unknown partner(s) in the privacy of his home was legally sufficient.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (N-M App. Gov’t 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 January 22, 2019, at 2 p.m.:

United States v. White, No. 20160187

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge erred by not suppressing appellant’s statement that was taken without appellant being advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

II. Whether the military judge erred by not suppressing appellant’s statement that was taken without appellant being advised of his rights under Article 31, UCMJ.  See, e.g., United States v. Redd, 67 M.J. 581, 586 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2008).

III. If appellant’s pretrial admissions were based on an incorrect belief that a person cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse after consuming alcohol, is his conviction of the Specification of Charge I factually sufficient?

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 Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, January 24, 2019, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Olivares, No. 201800125

Case Summary: The case is an interlocutory government appeal pursuant to Article 62, UCMJ. The accused faces, inter alia, charges of sexual assault and sexual harassment. The military judge found the sole Specification of Charge I (violation of a lawful general order) failed to state an offense, finding that United States Navy General Regulations (1990) Article 1166 is not punitive and is void for vagueness. After the military judge granted the defense’s motion to dismiss the Specification, the government filed its appeal.

Issue: Whether the military judge erred by dismissing the sole Specification of Charge I finding that Article 1166, United States Navy General Regulations (1990), is not punitive and is void for vagueness?

2 Responses to “This Week in Military Justice – January 20, 2019”

  1. Vulture says:

    In Hutchins, didn’t the military lose the authority to require register of personnel fire arms stored off post?

  2. Scott says:

    I had to look up the Navy reg: “Sexual harassment is prohibited.  No member of the Department of the Navy shall commit sexual harassment.” 
     
    Looking on the phone, but off hand I don’t see any definitions or elements.  Is there additional detail anywhere else?
     
     

Leave a Reply