Last Wednesday CAAF granted review in this Army case:

No. 19-0382/AR. U.S. v. Gerald R. Carter, Jr. CCA 20160770. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following assigned issue:

I. WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INTRODUCE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THEIR POSSESSION.

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO ORDER A MISTRIAL FOR THE CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS.

And the following personally asserted issue:

III. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF HISTORICAL CELL-SITE LOCATION INFORMATION. See CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018).

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

The CCA’s opinion is available here.

The IAC issue is based on evidence that the appellant’s brother – not the appellant – committed the charged offenses, and the fact that the appellant’s military defense counsel did not introduce that evidence at trial. The mistrial issue (while not discussed in the CCA’s opinion) involves an intentional discovery violation by the prosecution that was exposed during the trial. The judicial error issue is the Grostefon issue related to the admission of cell-site information.

Disclosure: I represented the appellant in my personal capacity during review of his case by the Army CCA.

2 Responses to “CAAF grants review in Army case with issues of IAC, prosecutorial misconduct, and error by the military judge”

  1. Fisch says:

    Gerard’s Article 32 testimony strained the bounds of credulity to begin with, but we understand that defense counsel may ethically accept improbable—though nevertheless possible—explanations at face- value
     

    I’d like to know ACCA’s position on whether an SVP doing this is ethically acceptable regarding their witnesses.  Because I’ve seen a few cases where the Government’s witnesses testimony strained the bounds of credulity and the Government was clearly accepting improbable explanations at face value.

  2. Vulture says:

    A few weeks ago Stewie and I had a discussion about the statistical significance of repeated mentions of SHARP in a Supreme Court Petition.  Here.  The bookend figures where .41 and 2.5 percent.
    This opinion has 38 mentions of the name Gerard in a roughly 3600 words.  A little over one percent.
     
    Gerard is quite possibly a fictitious individual.
     
    The high righteous have chosen their vehicle.  If SHARP is as much of a fiction as Gerard was, it’s quite possible that the continued repetition of certain words and phrases is all that the courts are doing.

Leave a Reply