This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Hale was denied on June 3, 2019. Additionally, on May 22, 2019, an application for extension of time to file a cert. petition was granted in Richards v. Deborah Lee James, Secretary of the Air Force, et al., No. 18A1205.
Richards is a Lieutenant Colonel who was convicted of possession of child pornography and indecent acts with a child, and sentenced to confinement for 17 years, total forfeitures, and a dismissal. The Air Force CCA and CAAF affirmed the findings and sentence in United States v. Richards, No. ACM 38346, 2016 CCA LEXIS 285 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2 May 2016) (unpub. op.), aff’d, 76 M.J. 365 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (CAAFlog case page), with CAAF holding that a search authorization for electronic media need not include a temporal limitation so long as the authorization is otherwise sufficiently particularized. The Supreme Court denied cert. in 2018. Richards also filed numerous petitions for extraordinary relief with the military appellate courts, including petitions for habeas corpus that were denied on the basis of the Air Force Court’s holding that it lacks habeas jurisdiction in a case when direct review is over. Thereafter, CAAF dismissed a writ-appeal petition for lack of jurisdiction. Richards v. James, 78 M.J. 323 (C.A.A.F. 2019) (sum. disp.).
It seems that Richards is planning to file a new cert. petition challenging the holding of no jurisdiction. We’ve previously observed, however, that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review CAAF’s denial of a writ-appeal.
I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking four cases:
- Hale v. United States, No. 18-1383 (cert. denied on Jun. 3)
- Cooper v. United States, No. 18-423 (pend. conf. on Jun. 13)
- United States v. Briggs, No. 18AA1168 (ext. of time to file pet. granted to Jun. 22)
- Richards v. James, et al., No. 18A1205 (ext. of time to file pet. granted to Jul. 9)
This week at CAAF: CAAF has completed its oral argument schedule for the current term, and announced the following oral argument dates for next term:
October 2019: 16 (Project Outreach, BYU),17 (Project Outreach, Hill AFB), 22, 23
November 2019: 5, 6
December 2019: 3, 4
January 2020: 14, 15
February 2020: 11, 12
March 2020: 17, 18
April 2020: 7, 8, 9 (Project Outreach 7 – 9), 21, 22
May 2020: 5, 6, 12, 13
June 2020: 2
This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on June 19, 2019.
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’s website shows an oral argument scheduled for this Wednesday, June 12, 2019, at 1500, involving an alleged victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus under Article 6b, however, I’ve been informed that that alleged victim wants to withdraw the petition. Nevertheless, the following information is available on the CCA’s website:
In re K.M.O. (previously 3), NMCCA No.201900060
Case Summary: The Military Judge issued an interlocutory ruling granting the Accused’s (Real Party in Interest) Motion to Compel Production and ordered the United States to produce information about the Petitioner that the Petitioner argues is privileged. Petitioner filed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus at this Court.
I.What is the Standard of Review that the Court should apply to a petition for a writ of mandamus to enforce Article 6b, UCMJ?
II.Is the information about the Petitioner ordered to be produced by the Military Judge privileged under Military Rule of Evidence 513