Category: Argument Audio
Here are links to audio from the last two oral arguments at the NMCCA:
Tuesday, April 10, 2013: United States v. Rapp (link to audio)
I. Whether the appellant was denied his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when he was improperly advised that the government’s evidence constituted child pornography? And whether he would have contested the charges, absent this erroneous advice?
II. Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he accepted appellant’s guilty plea despite a substantial basis in fact and law to question appellant’s guilty plea?
III. Whether the general verdicts of guilt for specification one and two must be dismissed because they may have rested on constitutionally protected conduct in that images alleged to be child pornography, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8), are not child pornography?
Wednesday, April 3, 2013: United States v. Campbell (link to audio)
Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he accepted appellant’s guilty plea to larceny on divers occasions of an amount in excess of $500 where no single larceny exceeded $118.71?
Audio of last week’s oral arguments at CAAF is available at the following links:
United States v. Bennitt, No. 12-0616/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Granted Issue: Whether appellant’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter under Article 119(b)(2), UCMJ, is legally insufficient because (1) in accordance with United States v. Sargent, 18 M.J. 331 (C.M.A. 1982), appellant’s distribution of oxymorphone was not a crime directly affecting the person under Article 119(b)(2), and (2) even if so, Congress did not intend for Article 119(b)(2) to cover appellant’s misconduct.
Specified Issue: In Specification 2 of Charge I Appellant is charged with unlawfully killing Leah King while aiding and abetting Ms. King’s wrongful use of Oxymorphone, which is alleged to be an “offense” directly affecting the person of Ms. King. Must Ms. King’s use of Oxymorphone be an “offense” to be legally sufficient to support the finding of guilty under Article 119(b)(2)?
United States v. Salyer, No. 13-0186/MC (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Under United States v. Lewis, a case is dismissed with prejudice when unlawful command influence results in the recusal of a military judge. Here, the military judge recused himself because he found that the government’s actions made it impossible for him to remain on the case. The government complained to his supervisor about a ruling, accessed his service record without permission and, with this information, moved for his recusal. Should this case be dismissed with prejudice?
United States v. Squire, No. 13-0061/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether Appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser when the military judge permitted testimonial hearsay in the form of SL’s statement to a physician.
United States v. Wilson, No. 13-0096/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether appellant was denied his right to a speedy trial in violation of Article 10, UCMJ, when the government failed to act with reasonable diligence in bringing him to trial.
The audio of the oral argument in United States v. Salyer is available on line here.
Audio of last week’s argument at the NMCCA in United States v. Price is available at this link (note: audio file contained in a zip archive). The issue before the court was:
Whether the vacation hearing officer was neutral and detached, when the vacation hearing officer determined that the petitioner had committed misconduct before acting as the vacation hearing officer.
Audio of last week’s Project Outreach oral argument in United States v. Kelly, No. 12-0524/AR, is now posted at this link.
Audio of last week’s oral argument before the NMCCA in United States v. West is available at this link (note: the audio file is contained within a zip archive). The issues in West are:
I. Whether the appellant’s pretrial confinement at a civilian detention center violated Article 13, UCMJ.
II. Whether the appellant’s pretrial confinement in the barracks duty hut violated Article 13, UCMJ.
III. Does the provision of the pretrial agreement in which the government promises to remove the appellant from confinement and subject her to “a lesser form of pretrial restraint” after she testifies against a co-conspirator (¶16.a of Appellate Exhibit IV) violate public policy?
IV. If that provision violates public policy, what is the proper remedy?
Audio of last week’s oral argument before the NMCCA in United States v. Oakley is available at this link.
It takes longer for me to get audio of a hearing that I participated in, from the recording device in the courtroom that is located in the same building as my office and the office of the person who pulls the audio… CAAF’s handling of argument audio might be the only system that moves faster the closer to Washington D.C. it gets.
I’m abandoning the podcasting effort for now, due to some technological hurdles that I don’t have the time to figure out. Here’s a rundown of oral argument audio from cases heard in November:
- Wednesday, November 7:
- Tuesday, November 13:
- Tuesday, November 27:
- Thursday, November 29: