CAAFlog » Argument Audio

Update: It is very difficult to hear Judge Ryan in CAAF’s recording of the oral argument in Sterling. I was able to enhance the recording to make her easier to hear. The enhanced audio is available here

Audio of this week’s oral arguments at CAAF is available at the following links:

United States v. Witt, No. 15-0260/AF (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

United States v. Sterling, No.s 15-0510/MC & 16-0223/MC (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio (original from CAAF)

Audio of this week’s Project Outreach oral arguments is available at the following links:

United States v. Harrell, No. 16-007/AF (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

United States v. Martin, 15-0754/MC (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

Audio of today’s oral arguments at CAAF is available at the following links:

United States v. Clark, No. 16-0068/NA (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

United States v. Rogers, No. 16-0006/CG (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

Audio of this week’s oral arguments at the NMCCA is available at the following links:

United States v. Hackler: Oral argument audio

United States v. Chikaka: Oral argument audio

Audio of today’s oral arguments is available at the following links:

United States v. Caldwell, No. 16-0091/AR (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

United States v. Williams, No. 16-0053/AF (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

Audio of today’s oral arguments is available at the following links:

United States v. Gay, Nos. 15-0742/AF & 15-0750/AF (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

United States v. Atchak, No. 16-0054/AF (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

Audio of today’s oral argument is available at the following link:

United States v. Chin, No. 15-0749/AF (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.

Audio of yesterday’s oral arguments at CAAF is available at the following links:

United States v. Henning, No. 16-0026/AR (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

United States v. Pease, No. 16-0014/NA (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

Audio of this week’s oral arguments at CAAF is available at the following links:

United States v. Bess, No. 15-0372/NA (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

United States v. Gifford, No. 15-0426/AR (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

Audio of this morning’s oral argument in United States v. LaBella, No.15-0413/AF (CAAFlog case page) is available at the following link: Oral argument audio.

Audio of today’s oral arguments at CAAF is available at the following links:

United States v. Captain, No. 15-0172/MC (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.

United States v. Riggins, No. 15-0334/MC (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.

Audio of last week’s project outreach oral arguments is available at the following links:

United States v. Hoffmann, No.15-0361/MC (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

United States v. Rapert, No.15-0476/AR (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio

Audio of yesterday’s oral arguments at CAAF is available at the following links:

United States v. Busch, No.15-0477/AF (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.

United States v. Killion, No.15-0425/AF (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.

Audio of today’s oral arguments at CAAF is available at the following links:

United States v. Cooley, No.15-0384/CG & 15-0387/CG (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.

United States v. Wilder, No.15-0087/MC (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.

 

Audio of Thursday’s oral argument at the NMCCA in United States v. Spurling is available at the CCA’s website here. The recording is of poor quality, so I created an enhanced version (applying noise correction and compression) available here (note: the file is a 68MB mp3).

The case involves a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure of the defense to seek suppression of the appellant’s statement (made in the absence of an Article 31(b) warning). This is the NMCCA’s second review of this case. The court previously issued an en banc decision denying appellant relief (discussed here), but CAAF summarily reversed and remanded (discussed here). The issue before the court now (discussed here) focuses on the standard of prejudice to be applied when evaluating a claim of IAC.

Notably, during the argument, the Government counsel asserted a difference between military correction and military discipline, arguing that the appellant’s statement should not be suppressed (meaning that there was no prejudice in the failure of counsel to seek suppression) because the military questioner intended only to correct the appellant, not to discipline him. I think the idea that there is a difference between correction and discipline in the military context is, frankly, nonsensical.