This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:
- King v. United States, No. 18-1254 (pend. conf. on Apr. 26)
This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument date at CAAF is May 7, 2019, however CAAF’s website should no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday April 30, 2019, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Clark, No. 20170023
I. Whether the miltary judge erred by finding statements from two CID agents made during appellant’s videotaped interrogation were not “statements” for R.C.M. 914 purposes?
II. If the military judge erred, do the good faith loss or harmless error doctrines otherwise apply when the military judge made a previous ruling that “no evidence of bad faith on the part of any Government actor” existed in the government’s loss of one of the five discs from appellant’s videotaped interrogation?
III. If error exists and the good faith loss or harmless error doctrines do not apply: (1) what evidence and testimony should have been excluded; and (2) what is the proper test, if any, for this court to apply prejudice?
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 Wedesnday, May 1, 2019, at 1 p.m.:
United States v. Sager, No. 201400356
Case Summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contactin violation of Article120, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §920(2012). The Members sentenced Appellant to twenty-four months of confinement and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered it executed.
Issue: This case is before this Court for further review after our initial decision on direct appeal was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and after this Court granted the government’s request for reconsideration of its opinion on remand. May the Court now consider the government’s argument, raised for the first time, that the members announced a general verdict?
See United States v. Sager, 76 M.J. 158 (C.A.A.F. Mar. 21, 2017) (CAAFlog case page).