CAAFlog » TWIMJ

This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General filed this response in opposition to the cert petition in Larrabee. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 22, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on January 16, 2019, at 2 p.m.:

United States v. Pacheco, No. 20170177

Issues:
I. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to convict appellant of child endangerment (Specification 1 of Charge II).

II. Whether the military judge erred in denying defense counsel the ability to cross-examine JP on prior specific acts of violence and present evidence of JP’s prior acts of violence through defense witnesses.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Laubach, No. 39396, on January 16, 2019, at 10 a.m. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on January 31, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General received an extension of time to file the requested response to the cert. petition in Larrabee. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 22, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 16, 2019.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on January 16, 2019.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on January 31, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 22, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 16, 2019.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on January 16, 2019.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on January 31, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 22, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 16, 2019.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on January 16, 2019.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on January 30, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 22, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 16, 2019.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on January 16, 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 Thursday, December 20, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Watkins, No. 2017002

Case summary: A general court-martial composed of members with enlisted representation convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of violating a lawful order in violation of Article 92, UCMJ one specification of committing a lewd act upon a child in violation Article 120b, UCMJ; and one specification of obstructing justice in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The members sentenced the appellant to five years confinement, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and, except for the dismissal, ordered the sentence executed.

Issues:
I. Did the military judge err in denying civilian defense counsel’s motion to withdraw as appellant’s counsel?

II. The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused the right, within limits, to retain counsel of his own choosing. Before trial, and after his civilian counsel moved to withdraw from the case citing a perceived conflict, the appellant asked to release his civilian counsel and hire a different one. Did the military judge err by denying this request?

This week at SCOTUS: The petition in Eppes was denied on December 3. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 22, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 16, 2019.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on January 16, 2019.

This week at the CGCCA: It’s not posted on the court’s website, but the Coast Guard CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, December 13, 2018, at 10 a.m., at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s courtroom aboard the Washington Navy Yard:

United States v. Rogers, No. 1391

Issues:
I: Whether Specification 3 of Charge III fails to state an offense under Article 134,Clause 3 where it fails to allege two elements required to establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 499.

II: Whether Specification 3 of Charge III fails to state an offense under Article 134, Clause 2 for wrongful use of a false or unauthorized military identification card where it fails to allege three elements of the offense.

[updated with modified issue] [III]: Whether the evidence of obstruction of justice under Article 134 was legally sufficient where the conduct was a statement by the accused to civilian detectives in a civilian law enforcement investigation that his memory blacked out at a certain point in the evening.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on December 20, 2018.

Note: In honor of the death of former President George H. W. Bush, President Trump ordered the closure of all executive departments and agencies on Wednesday, December 5. CAAF will also close on Wednesday.

Update: All four cases scheduled to be argued at CAAF this week will be argued on Tuesday, December 4, 2018, beginning at 8 a.m., in the following order: Cooper, Forbes, Briggs, then Stout.

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in four cases this week:

Tuesday, December 4, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Cooper, No. 18-0282/NA (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Did the lower court err not finding waiver of the right to request individual military counsel where Appellee was advised of his right to request an individual military counsel, agreed he understood the right but wanted instead to be represented by trial defense counsel, and made no motion for individual military counsel?

II. Did the lower court err in not applying the Strickland ineffective assistance test where the government and trial judge played no part in the defense’s failure to request individual military counsel, and if so, did Appellee suffer ineffective assistance of counsel?

III. If Strickland does not apply, did the lower court correctly find Appellee was deprived of his statutory right to request individual military counsel?

IV. Did the lower court err in it’s prejudice analysis for Appellee’s asserted deprivation of his statutory right to individual military counsel when Appellee did not preserve the issue at trial, raised the issue for the first time on appeal, and has alleged no specific prejudice?

Case Links:
NMCCA opinion
Appellant’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appelllee’s brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Briggs, No. 16-0711/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Does the 2006 amendment to Article 43, UCMJ, clarifying that rape is an offense with no statute of limitations, apply retroactively to offenses committed before enactment of the amendment but for which the then extant statute of limitations had not expired.

II. Can Appellant successfully raise a statute of limitations defense for the first time on appeal.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: SCOTUS remands
Blog post: CAAF grants
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (A.F. App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, December 5, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. (see note above)

United States v. Stout, No. 18-0273/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Government made major changes to the time frame of three offenses, over defense objection, and failed to prefer them anew in accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial 603.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview (working)

Followed by:

United States v. Forbes, 18-0304/NA (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the NMCCA erred in holding that Appellant was provident to sexual assault by bodily harm due to his failure to inform his sexual partners of his HIV status.

Case Links:
NMCCA opinion
Blog post: NMCCA opinion analysis
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (N.M. App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Amicus brief in support of Appellant (OutServe-SLDN, Inc.)
• Blog post: Argument preview (working)

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, December 6, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Solomon, No. 20160456

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge’s findings instructions are plain error.

II. The military judge prohibited the defense from conducting recross-examination. Did this deny appellant his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him?

[III]. Whether it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for the military judge to prohibit the defense from presenting evidence that W.S. had a motive to fabricate.

Disclosure: I represent the appellant in my civilian capacity and will argue this case.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Coast Guard CCA is on December 13, 2018. The argument will occur in the Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s courtroom aboard the Washington Navy Yard.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on December 20, 2018.

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Dinger was denied on November 13. The solicitor general received a second extension of time to file the requested response to the cert. petition in Larrabee. The petition in Eppes was distributed for conference on November 30.

I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on December 4, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on December 6, 2018

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Simmons, No. 39342, on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, at 10 a.m. No additional case information is available on the CCA’s website.

Disclosure: I represent the appellant in my civilian capacity and will argue this case.

This week at the CGCCA: (updated) The next scheduled oral argument at the Coast Guard CCA is on December 13, 2018. The argument will occur in the Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s courtroom aboard the Washington Navy Yard.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on December 20, 2018.

This week at SCOTUS: The solicitor general waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Eppes. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on December 4, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA, sitting en banc, will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday, November 13, 2018, at 2 p.m.:

United States v. Kelly, 20150725

Issue: What is the scope of this Court’s review given the remand from the Court of Appeal for the Armed Forces?

Disclosure: I represent the appellant in my civilian capacity and will argue this case.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on November 28, 2018.

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 no scheduled oral arguments.

Significant military justice event this week: The LexisNexis CLE on recent reforms to the UCMJ is on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, at The National Press Club in Washington D.C. Additional details available here. Note: Event open to DoD-affiliated persons only.

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Andrews was denied on October 29. An amicus brief (available here) in support of the cert. petition in Dinger was filed by the National Institute of Military Justice and the Amicus Project at Southwestern Law School.

The Court docketed a pro se, cert. petition (available here) that was filed back in August in Eppes v. United States, No. 18-6531. In United States v. Eppes, 77 M.J. 339 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 10, 2018) (CAAFlog case page), CAAF affirmed conditional pleas of guilty, unanimously concluding that one challenged search was proper, and concluding by a majority that a second challenged search was technically problematic but its fruits ultimately admissible.

I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking four cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in four cases this week:

Tuesday, November 6, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. King, No. 18-0288/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: The military judge found Appellant guilty of viewing child pornography. But all of the alleged child pornography appellant allegedly viewed was found in unallocated space or a Google cache. Is the evidence legally sufficient?

Case Links:
AFCCA decision
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Air Force App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Kohlbek, No. 18-0267/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge erred by misconstruing Mil.R.Evid. 707 and prohibiting Appellant from presenting evidence relevant to Appellant’s post-polygraph statement.

Case Links:
ACCA decision
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Army App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, November 7, 2018, at 9 a.m.:

United States v. Bodoh, No. 18-0201/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge plainly erred by allowing the trial counsel to misstate the law and argue that the panel should base its verdict on SHARP training

Case Links:
ACCA decision
Blog post: CAAF grant
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Army App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Nicola, No. 18-0247/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the evidence of indecent viewing in violation of Article 120c, UCMJ, was legally sufficient.

Case Links:
ACCA decision
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) brief
Blog post: Argument preview

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 November 28, 2018.

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 no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Dinger was scheduled for conference. The Solicitor General received an extension of time to file the requested response to the petition Larrabee. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on November 6, 2018.

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 November 28, 2018.

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 no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Dinger. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in three cases this week:

Tuesday, October 23, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Hamilton, No. 18-0135/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Are victim impact statements admitted pursuant to R.C.M. 1001A evidence subject to the Military Rules of Evidence?

II. Whether the military judge erred in admitting prosecution exhibits 4, 5, and 6.

Case Links:
AFCCA decision
Blog post: CCA opinion analysis
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Air Force App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Hale, No. 18-0162/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Granted Issues:
I. The lower court found as a matter of law that personal jurisdiction does not exist outside of the hours of inactive-duty training. The lower court proceeded to find personal jurisdiction existed over Appellant because he was “staying” with his in-laws. Was this error?

II. Whether the lower court erred when it concluded the military judge correctly instructed the members they could convict Appellant for conduct “on or about” the dates alleged in each specification.

Specified Issue:
III. Whether the lower court erred in concluding the court-martial had jurisdiction over specification 2 of additional charge 1, as modified to affirm the lesser included offense of attempted larceny.

Case Links:
AFCCA decision
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Air Force App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, October 24, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Tucker, No. 18-0254/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army Court erred in holding that the minimum mens rea required under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, UCMJ, to separate wrongful from innocent conduct is simple negligence.

Case Links:
• Prior CAAFlog case page
ACCA decision
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Deason, No. 20150674

Issue: Whether the military judge abused her discretion when she denied the defense motion to suppress Specialist Deason’s 1 September 2014 statement to CID.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on November 28, 2018.

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 Thursday, October 25, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. The Argument will occur at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, 3600 John McCormack Road NE, Washington, DC:

United States v. Jennings, No. 201700241

Case Summary: A panel of officers sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of six specifications under Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of solicitation under Article 134, UCMJ. The members sentenced the appellant to three years’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered the sentence executed.

Issues:
[I]. Whether the government failed to disprove the defense of entrapment—that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service Agent did not induce the Appellant or that the Appellant was predisposed to commit this crime.

[II]. The government cannot use liberty risk as a subterfuge for restriction. Here, the government held the appellant on liberty risk, which restricted him to base, for 732 days (513 days prior to arraignment). Did the government’s actions constitute restriction under Rule for Courts-Martial 304(a)(2) and trigger Rule for Courts-Martial 707?

[IV]. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a servicemember the right to effective assistance of counsel. The appellant spent 732 days in restriction, which started the government’s Rule for Courts-Martial 707, 120-day clock. Were trial defense counsel deficient by failing to assert the appellant’s speedy trial rights?

This week at SCOTUS: A new petition for certiorari was filed in Dinger v. United States on October 5, 2018. The petitioner is a retired member of the Marine Corps who pleaded guilty to a number of child exploitation offenses, all of which were committed after he entered retired status following the completion of 20 years of enlisted service in the active component. A pretrial agreement provided for suspension of all confinement in excess of eight years, but the agreement did not protect Dinger from a punitive discharge. Such a discharge was adjudged and approved, and CAAF unanimously affirmed that such a punishment is authorized for a retired member in United States v. Dinger, 77 M.J. 447 (C.A.A.F. Jun. 18, 2018) (CAAFlog case page).

The cert. petition doesn’t challenge CAAF’s conclusion that the punitive discharge is authorized. Instead, it asserts that CAAF’s decision is new law that may not fairly apply retroactively to Dinger. The question presented is:

After petitioner’s offenses, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces overruled two precedents without fair warning and held that a court-martial can sentence retired Navy and Marine Corps personnel to a dishonorable discharge. Did it violate due process to apply the new rule to him? See Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964).

I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on October 23, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Williams, No. 20160231

Issues:
I. Whether appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial defense counsel knowingly failed to disclose an actual conflict of interest.

II. Whether the military judge erred by admitting hearsay obtained by a multi-disciplinary team led by law enforcement as medical hearsay.

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 will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday, October 16, 2018, at 1 p.m.:

United States v. Jeter, No. 201700248

Case Summary: A panel of officers sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of sexual harassment, two specifications of drunken operation of a vehicle, three specifications of sexual assault, one specification of extortion, one specification of burglary, two specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer, one specification of communicating a threat, and two specifications of unlawful entry in violation of Articles 92, 111, 120, 127, 129, 133, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 911, 920, 927, 929, 933, and 934 (2016). The appellant was sentenced to twenty years’ confinement and a dismissal. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the dismissal, ordered the sentence executed.

Issues:
I. After removing minority and female members from a panel, the government must provide a demographic-neutral reason for the removals. The convening authority removed two African Americans and three women from the appellant’s members panel and replaced them with only white men. Was it error to not require a demographic-neutral explanation after the defense objected?

[II]. Evidence admitted under military rule of evidence 404(b) must be materially relevant and the probative value must outweigh the prejudice. The military judge instructed the members they may use evidence that was not materially relevant and invited character inferences to prove intent and motive. Did the military judge err in assessing the material relevance, probative value and prejudicial effect on the evidence?

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Condon was denied. The Court requested a response from the Solicitor General in Larrabee. The petition in Andrews was distributed for conference on October 26.

I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on October 23, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Lara, No. 20170025

Issue: Whether the military judge committed plain error by failing to provide a voluntary intoxication instruction.

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 no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Larrabee was distributed for conference on October 12, 2018, and the Solicitor General waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Andrews.

I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF completed its oral argument calendar for the 2017 term. Details about the cases reviewed by CAAF this term are available on our 2017 Term of Court page. The 2018 term begins on October 1, 2018. The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on October 23, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in two cases this week, both on Thursday, October 4, 2018:

At 10 a.m.:

United States v. Thompson, No. 20170150

Issue: Whether government counsel committed prosecutorial misconduct when they used perjured testimony that affected the judgment of the panel.

At 11:30 a.m.:

United States v. Jessie, No. 20160187

Issue: Whether military correctional complex standard operating procedure 310, “sex offender contact with minor children,” unlawfully increases appellant’s sentence by precluding appellant from contacting his children in violation of appellant’s fifth and first amendment rights.

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 will hear oral argument in one case this week, on October 2, 2018, at 1 p.m.:

United States v. Jennings, NMCCA No. 201700241

Case Summary: A panel of officers sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of six specifications under Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of solicitation under Article 134, UCMJ. The members sentenced the appellant to three years’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered the sentence executed.

Issues:
[I]. Whether the government failed to disprove the defense of entrapment—that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service agent did not induce the appellant or that the appellant was predisposed to commit this crime.

[II]. The government cannot use liberty risk as a subterfuge for restriction. Here, the government held the appellant on liberty risk, which restricted him to base, for 732 days (513 days prior to arraignment). Did the government’s actions constitute restriction under Rule for Courts-Martial 304(a)(2) and trigger Rule for Courts-Martial 707?

[III]. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a servicemember the right to effective assistance of counsel. The appellant spent 732 days in restriction, which started the government’s Rule for Courts-Martial 707, 120-day clock. Were trial defense counsel deficient by failing to assert the appellant’s speedy trial rights?