This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Briggs has been rescheduled and will not be considered at the Oct. 1 conference. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking six cases:
- United States v. Briggs, No. 19-108 (pend. conf.)
- United States v. Collins, No. 19-184 (pet. filed Aug. 9; Collins resp. filed Sep. 9; Daniels resp. due Oct. 9)
- Richards v. Donovan, et al., No. 19-55 (pet. filed Jun. 8; resp. req. Aug. 14, due Oct. 15)
- Livingstone v. United States, No. 19-5256 (pro se pet. dkt. Jul. 19; resp. waived Jul. 31; pend. conf. on Oct. 1)
- Camacho v. United States, No. 19-243 (pet. filed. Aug 21; resp. waived Sep. 3, pend conf. on Oct. 1)
- McDonald v. United States, No. 19A191 (ext. of time to file cert. pet. granted to Oct. 26)
This week at CAAF: CAAF completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on September 30, 2019.
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 Friday, September 27, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.:
United States v. Ayalacruz, No. 201800193
Case Summary: A special court-martial consisting of officer members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 892), one specification of simple assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 928), and one specification of disorderly conduct, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 934). The members sentenced Appellant to a reprimand, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.
I. Did the military judge violate Appellant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy when he instructed the court members to revise the announcement of their findings?
[II]A. Did the court members acquit Appellant of both elements of simple assault in the second announcement of their findings through improper exception and substitution?
[II]B. Did the language substituted by the court members in the second announcement of their findings fail to state an offense?