This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:
- Larrabee v. United States, No. 18-306 (pend. conf. on Feb. 15)
This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on February 19, 2019.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in two cases this week:
Tuesday, February 12, 2019, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Steele, No. 20170303
I. Whether the convening authority improperly approved the appellant’s sentence without a substantially verbatim transcript, in violation of Rule for Courts-Martial 1103(f)(1).
II. Whether the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the appellant’s conviction for indecent exposure.
Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at noon:
United States v. Lopez, No. 20170386
I. Whether the Fort Benning garrison commander had the legal authority to order searches in privatized housing at Porter Village.
II. Does MCOE regulation number 190-11 prohibit the possession of unregistered firearms (or other applicable weapons) in Porter Village? If not, did the garrison commander still have a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed to search appellant’s house?
III. Assuming there was not probable cause to search appellant’s house, does the good faith exception apply? See United States v. Thomas, 908 F.3d 68 (4th cir. 2018); see also United States v. Perkins, 78 M.J. 550 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App. 2018) (certificate of rev. filed) __ M.M. __ (C.A.A.F. 10 Sep. 2018).
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, February 14, 2019, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. King, No. 201800016
A panel of officer and enlisted members sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, a Master-At-Arms Seaman (E-3), contrary to his pleas, of one specification of sexual assault in violation of Article 120, UCMJ. The members sentenced him to confinement for eight years, reduction to the pay grade of E-1, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. The CA ordered the sentence executed, except for the dishonorable discharge.
I. Does Article 120(b)(1)(B) of the UCMJ fail to provide adequate standards by which an ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, whether a sexual encounter would be lawful, rendering it unconstitutionally vague?
II. Were the findings instructions plainly erroneous because lack of consent was not included as an element of the offense of sexual assault by bodily harm, and because the instructions would have permitted a conviction without the prosecution proving lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt?