This week at SCOTUS: The Court denied cert in McMurrin v. United States, No. 14-262. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking only one case:
- Wickware v. United States, No. 14-6677 (pro se pet.; resp. due Nov. 10)
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in four cases this week, two on Monday and two on Tuesday.
Monday, October 20, 2014, beginning at 9:30 a.m.:
United States v. Phillips, No. 14-0199/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion by accepting appellant’s plea of guilty to disobeying the order of his commander in violation of Article 90, UCMJ, when the ultimate offense at issue was the minor offense of breaking restriction described under Article 134, UCMJ, and the record does not reflect appellant’s understanding that the order imposing restriction was issued with the full authority of his commander’s office to lift the duty in the parlance of this court’s earlier opinion, “above the common ruck.”
ACCA opinion (three-judge panel) (deleted from the CCA’s website)
• Blog post: Is the “ultimate offense doctrine” making a comeback?
• ACCA opinion (recon. en banc), 73 M.J. 572
• Blog post: It was fun while it lasted… the Army CCA puts an end to the comeback of the ultimate offense doctrine
• Blog post: The ultimate offense doctrine returns to CAAF
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Government) brief
• Blog post: Argument preview
United States v. Morita, No. 14-5007/AF (CAAFlog case page)
Certified Issue: Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it found the court-martial lacked subject matter jurisdiction and whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals abused its discretion when it refused to grant the Government’s motion to submit documents.
Granted Issue: Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred by finding that a reservist can create court-martial jurisdiction by forging active duty orders and/or inactive-duty training orders and by finding that court-martial jurisdiction existed for each 120-day period listed on the three applications for MPA man-day tours.
• AFCCA oral argument audio
• AFCCA opinion (73 M.J. 548)
• Blog post: The AFCCA’s fascinating opinion in Morita
• Certified issue: Government’s brief
• Certified issue: Defense brief
• Granted issue: Defense brief
• Granted issue: Government brief
• Blog post: Argument preview
Tuesday, October 21, 2014, beginning at 9:30 a.m.:
United States v. Peters, No. 14-0289/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the military judge erred in denying the implied bias challenge against LTC JC, in light of LTC JC’s professional relationship with trial counsel, the special court-martial convening authority, and the investigating officer.
United States v. Castillo, No. 14-0457/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the military judge erred in denying the defense implied bias challenge against LTC DS in light of his personal experience as a sexual assault victim, his direct supervisory role over two other members, his ongoing reliance on the trial counsel for military justice advice, the presence of four other members who also received military justice assistance from the trial counsel, and the fact that the panel was selected exclusively from appellant’s brigade.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website should no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard Trial Docket shows no scheduled oral arguments at the Coast Guard CCA.
This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.