On Wednesday CAAF granted review of ordered a response to a Grostefon issue in this Army case:

No. 19-0212/AR. U.S. v. Patrick B. Teer. CCA 20170601. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and the pleadings filed in the case, it is ordered that Appellee will file a substantive answer to the following issue personally raised by Appellant:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY FAILING TO RECUSE HIMSELF BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCES THAT, IF KNOWN AT THE TIME OF APPELLANT’S COURT-MARTIAL, WOULD HAVE PROVIDED REASONS TO REASONABLY QUESTION HIS IMPARTIALITY.

Appellee’s answer will be filed within 15 days of the date of this order. A reply may be filed by Appellant within 5 days of Appellee’s answer.

There’s no opinion on the Army CCA’s website (meaning that the CCA summarily affirmed).

15 Responses to “CAAF orders response to a Grostefon issue of judicial disqualification”

  1. Mike says:

    WAG, applying for a job as an immigration judge?

  2. Michael Lowrey says:

    The Army results of trial summary entry on this case:

    On 15 November 2017, at a general court-martial convened at Fort Benning, Georgia, SGT Patrick B. Teer, United States Army, was convicted by a military judge, pursuant to his pleas, of six specifications of lewd acts upon a child, two specifications of assault consummated by a battery, five specifications of production of child pornography, two specifications of possession of child pornography, and one specification of indecent language, in violation of Articles 120b, 128, and 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced the accused to be reduced to the grade of E-1, to be confined for 9 years, and to be discharged from the service with a dishonorable discharge. As part of an offer to plead guilty, a pretrial agreement limited confinement to 5 years.

  3. Nathan Freeburg says:

    Ah, if this is about what I think it is, interesting issue. 

  4. Bill Cassara says:

    Nathan: Judging by the trial location, I suspect you are right. 

  5. Allan says:

    Nathan and Bill:  Do tell! 

  6. Philip D. Cave says:

    Interesting, yes.
    I have a “Teer” case. Assuming arguendo CAAF finds an error, what’s the remedy?

  7. ACCAInquiry says:

    Rookie question:  what’s the difference between summary affirmation and summary disposition?  Does ACCA post a list of summary affirmations?

  8. stewie says:

    Ok…what is the issue?

  9. Zachary D Spilman says:

    Rookie question:  what’s the difference between summary affirmation and summary disposition? 

    A summary disposition is typically a decision without a formal written opinion. The Army CCA, however, issues written opinions it calls summary dispositions (it also issues published and memorandum opinions), in addition to also summarily affirming convictions without any written opinion.

    Does ACCA post a list of summary affirmations?

    Nope.

  10. Moses says:

    This is NOT a grant order.  The order simply asks the Government to file an answer to a Grostefon issue raised in Appellant’s petition for grant of review.  Rookie mistake on Mr Spilman’s part. 

  11. af_dc says:

    Could someone please tell the rest of us what the issue is? We’d all like to know. 

  12. Zachary D Spilman says:

    This is NOT a grant order.  The order simply asks the Government to file an answer to a Grostefon issue raised in Appellant’s petition for grant of review.  Rookie mistake on Mr Spilman’s part.

    You’re right Moses. Not a grant – just a call for a response to the Grostefon issue. Post corrected.

  13. Nathan Freeburg says:

    af_dc etc., a military judge got in trouble and I’m surmising that the argument is that he should have disclosed ongoing misconduct to the defense or recused himself.
    (this is not the same judge that Darpino screwed for his comments in a bridging the gap session)

  14. af_dc says:

    Nathan Freeburg, much obliged. 

  15. stewie says:

    What kind of trouble?

Leave a Reply