CAAFlog » TWIMJ

This week at SCOTUS: The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Dalmazzi tomorrow morning.

The Court denied the cert. petitions in Bartee and Tso (noted here). The Solicitor General filed a memorandum response to the cert. petition in Cash (available here), asking that it be held as a Dalmazzi trailer.

On January 8 the Court docketed a new cert. petition in Roukis v. Department of the Army, No 17-7321. A copy of the petition is available here.

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

This week at CAAF: CAAF’s website is inaccessible, however the next scheduled oral argument is on January 23, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still inaccessible from the public internet (discussed here).

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website is inaccessible (it’s on the same server as CAAF’s website).

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

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 21, 2018.

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

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

Tuesday, January 9, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Williams, No. 17-0285/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously found that the propensity instruction given in this case falls within an exception to the holding in United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016).

Case Links:
• ACCA decision (first decision / pre-Hills) (75 M.J. 621)
• Blog post: ACCA overturns pesky precedent
• Blog post: CAAF reverses
• ACCA opinion
• Blog post: CAAF grants
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) answer
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, January 10, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Carpenter, No. 0476/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred in limiting the cross-examination of the complaining witness under Military Rule of Evidence 412 on an issue showing that Appellant’s subjective mistake of fact as to the complaining witness’s age was objectively reasonable.

Case Links:
• AFCCA decision
• Blog post: CAAF grant
• Appellant’s brief (sealed)
• Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) answer (sealed)
• Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Mooney, No. 17-0405/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the convening authority’s action is void ab initio where it purports to order Appellant’s adjudged court-martial sentence to run consecutive to his previously adjudged federal sentence instead of concurrently as required by Article 57, UCMJ.

Case Links:
• AFCCA decision
• Blog post: CAAF grant
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) answer
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still inaccessible from the public internet (discussed here).

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 oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments at the CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: Reply briefs were filed in Bartee and Tso on December 20, 2017, and both cases are pending conference this week. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking seven cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 9, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is down, but I believe that next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 11, 2018. The argument will be held at New England School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

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 oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments at the CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: The petitions in Bartee and Tso were distributed for conference on January 5, 2018. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking seven cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 9, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 11, 2018. The argument will be held at New England School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

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 oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments at the CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: A petition for certiorari was filed in Cash, et al. v. United States, No. 17-840, on December 12, 2017. The petition (available here) includes three Dalmazzi trailers. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking seven cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 9, 2018

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 11, 2018. The argument will be held at New England School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

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 oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments at the CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: The SG filed the requested response to the cert. petition in Bartee; it is available here. The SG also filed a response to the petition in Tso; it is available here. Finally, the SG received an extension of time to file a response to the petition in Richards.

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

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 9, 2018

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 11, 2018. The argument will be held at New England School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

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 oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments at the CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: SCOTUS denied cert. in Herrmann on November 27, 2017. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking eight cases:

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

Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Katso, No.17-0326/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it held that United States v. Miller, 47 M.J. 352 (C.A.A.F. 1997) required the government to hold a continued confinement hearing within 7 days of the Judge Advocate General’s decision on certification.
II. Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it found that government’s failure to hold a continued confinement hearing within 7 days of the Judge Advocate General’s decision on certification automatically resulted in a day-for-day sentencing credit.
III. Whether Appellee was prejudiced when the government failed to hold a continued confinement hearing within 7 days of certification.

Case Links:
Prior CAAFlog case page
• AFCCA opinion (76 M.J. 704)
Blog post: Katso returns to CAAF
• Appellant’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) brief
• Appellee’s (Katso) answer
• Appellant’s reply brief

Followed by:

United States v. Chisum, No.17-0199/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge’s failure to conduct an in camera review of the mental health records of AB AK and AB CR deprived Appellant of his right to confront the sole witnesses against him in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion (75 M.J. 943)
Blog post: AFCCA obtains & reviews 2 set of mental health records
• Appellant’s brief (sealed)
• Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) answer (redacted)
• Appellant’s reply brief (sealed)
Amicus brief (Protect Our Defenders) in support of A.F. Gov’t App. Div.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Harpole, No.17-0171/CG (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge abused her discretion when she allowed a victim advocate to testify as to Appellant’s privileged communications, in violation of M.R.E. 514.
II. Whether the trial defense counsel were ineffective by failing to suppress Appellant’s unwarned admissions. These admissions were made to YNI NIPP when she knew he was a suspect and under investigation. She intended to report these admissions to the command and questioned him without advising him of his Art. 31 UCMJ, rights.
III. Upon request by the defense counsel and using a defense-drafted instruction, should the military judge have provided the members with an explanation of the term “incapable”?

Case Links:
CGCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grant
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (C.G. Gov’t App. Div.) answer

Followed by:

United States v.  Honea III, No.17-0347/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Immediately before the defense rested its case, the military judge invited the parties’ attention to R.C.M. 910, and directed the defense to provide the military judge with a draft specification of assault consummated by a battery. Did the lower court err when it held that the defense’s compliance with the military judge’s directive constituted a de facto defense request to modify the specification pursuant to R.C.M. 603 where there is no evidence that either the defense or the convening authority were aware the charge was being amended pursuant to R.C.M. 603?
II. The military judge dismissed Specification 2 of Charge II, abusive sexual contact by causing bodily harm, for failure to state an offense, but she allowed the government to proceed to trial on the purported lesser included offense of assault consummated by a battery. Did the military judge err?

Case Links:
• AFCCA opinion
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) answer
• Appellant’s reply brief

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 25, 2018. The argument will be held at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, 25 East Pearson Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.

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 oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments at the CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General received extensions of time to file responses to the cert. petitions in Bartee and Tso. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking eight cases:

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

Tuesday, November 28, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Jerkins, No. 17-0203/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge abused her discretion by allowing a general officer memorandum of reprimand into sentencing evidence, where the reprimand was issued two weeks before the court-martial and contained highly prejudicial and misleading language.

Case Links:
• ACCA opinion
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) answer
• Appellant’s reply brief

Followed by:

United States v. Acevedo, No. 17-0224/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the evidence is legally insufficient to support a charge of kidnapping by inveiglement.

Note: The case is also an Ortiz trailer.

Case Links:
• ACCA opinion (summary disposition)
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) answer
• Appellant’s reply brief

Wednesday, November 29, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Robinson, No. 17-0231/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Granted Issues:
I. Whether the miltiary judge erred by failing to admit constitutionally required evidence under Military Rule of Evidence 412(b)(1)(C).

II. Whether the military judge committed plain error when he failed to instruct the panel on the mens rea required for the specification of Charge 1, which involved an Article 92, UCMJ, violation of Army Regulation 600-20.

Specified Issue:
Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that Appellant knew or reasonably should have known that SPC VM was too intoxicated to consent to a sexual act.

Case Links:
• ACCA opinion (summary disposition)
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) answer
• Appellant’s reply brief
Amicus brief (Protect Our Defenders) in support of Army Gov’t App. Div.

Followed by:

United States v. Simpson, No. 17-0329/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Certified Issue: Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred by finding a substantial basis in law and fact to question Appellant’s plea in light of the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Shaw, 137 S.Ct. 462 (2016), and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces decision in United States v. Cimball-Sharpton, 73 M.J. 299 (C.A.A.F. 2014).

Case Links:
• ACCA opinion
• Appellant’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) brief
• Appellee’s answer
• Appellant’s reply brief

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 shows no scheduled oral arguments.

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

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA, sitting en banc, will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday, November 28, 2017, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Christopher, NMCCA No. 201600249

Case summary:
A panel of officer and enlisted members sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of three specifications of assault consummated by a battery upon a child in violation of Article 128, UCMJ, and one specification of indecent acts with a child in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. Members acquitted him of four specifications of assault consummated by a battery upon a child, and one specification of indecent acts with a child. The court-martial sentenced appellant to total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, six years confinement, and reduction to paygrade E-1.

In a post-trial 39(a) session, the MJ found the statute of limitations barred prosecution of two specifications of Charge I. The MJ dismissed those specifications and declared a mistrial as to sentencing. At resentencing, a new panel of officers and enlisted members sentenced the appellant to two years confinement, reduction to paygrade E-1, and awarded a dishonorable discharge.

Issues:
I. Court-martial jurisdiction requires that charges be referred by a “competent authority.” Did the court-martial lack in-personam jurisdiction over the appellant where he was a validly retired servicemember at the time of preferral, his retirement was never canceled by SECNAV, the case was referred by a subordinate commander, and R.C.M. 601(b)(3) requires referral for retirees to be completed by SECNAV, the “competent authority,” as a prerequisite to jurisdiction?

[II].. Before accepting CTT1 Christopher’s guilty plea, the military judge had a duty to advise him of his right to assert the protection of the statute of limitations. In failing to do so, did the military judge abuse her discretion?

[III]. United States v. Walters, 58 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F. 2003), requires that the military judge clarify ambiguous findings by the members on a conviction in order for a factual sufficiency review to be completed. Must the appellant’s conviction under Article 134 be overturned where the members were not given instructions to make a specific finding as to the date of the offense, and where the evidence presented showed the offense could have occurred outside the statute of limitations?

This week at SCOTUS: Dalmazzi is scheduled for oral argument on January 16, 2018.

A cert. petition was filed in Richards v. United States, No. 17-701. In United States v. Richards, 76 M.J. 365 (C.A.A.F. Jul. 13, 2017) (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), CAAF held that a search authorization for electronic media need not include a temporal limitation, even when the facts enable investigators to limit the search to a specific time period, so long as the authorization is otherwise sufficiently particularized so as to avoid an unconstitutionally broad search.

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

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on November 28, 2017.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday, November 21, 2017, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Hendrix, No. 20170439

Issues:
[I]. WHETHER A CONVENING AUTHORITY’S DISMISSAL OF CHARGES IS A “SUBTERFUGE” WHEN IT IS MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO HONOR THE WISHES OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM UNDER DODI 6495.02.

[II]. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DISMISSING THE CHARGE WITH PREJUDICE.

Note: From the second issue and the counsel for each side, this case is an interlocutory prosecution appeal.

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 oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments at the CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on November 28, 2017.

This week at SCOTUS: The appellant’s merits brief was filed in Dalmazzi on Tuesday. A copy is available here. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking eight cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on November 28, 2017.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on November 21, 2017.

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 oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments at the CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on November 28, 2017.

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Herrmann was distributed for conference on November 21. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking eight cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, November 8, 2017, at 4 p.m., at Cornell Law School in Ithaca, New York:

United States v. Eppes, No. 17-0364/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the search of Appellant’s personal bags exceeded the scope of the search authorization where the agent requested authority to search Appellant’s person, personal bags, and automobile, but the military magistrate authorized only the search of Appellant’s person and automobile and did not authorize the search of Appellant’s personal bags.

II. Whether Appellant’s right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment was violated when there was no probable cause for the 7 December 2012 warrant.

Case Links:
• AFCCA opinion
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (A.F. App. Gov’t Div.) answer
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Law student amicus brief in support of Appellant
• Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on November 21, 2017.

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 oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments at the CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: The solicitor general received an extension of time to respond to the cert. petition in Tso. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking eight cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on November 8, 2017.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Monday, October 30, 2017, at 2 p.m.:

United States v. Bradley, No. 20150752

Issues:
I. Whether this court is precluded from conducting a review pursuant to Article 66(c), UCMJ, of Specification 4 of Charge I because appellant was acquitted of the words “on divers occasions,” there was evidence that the alleged conduct occurred more than once, and the military judge did not specify which act had not been proven.
II. Whether the military judge erred in considering charged sexual misconduct to prove propensity to commit the charged sexual misconduct.

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 oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments at the CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday, October 31, 2017, at 10:30 a.m., at the Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute Moot Courtroom, 600 New Jersey Ave NW, Washington, DC 20001:

United States v. Gomez, NMCCA No. 201600331

Case summary:
A panel comprised of officer and enlisted members sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of violating a lawful general order, three specifications of sexual assault, and one specification of abusive sexual contact, in violation of Articles 92 and 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 892 and 920 (2012). The members sentenced the appellant to five years’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 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 violated LCpl Gomez’s due process rights when it charged him with violating Articles 120(b)(1)(b) and 120(d), UCMJ, under a bodily harm theory, but prosecuted and convicted him under an incapable of consenting due to impairment by alcohol theory.

II. Whether the term “incompetent,” as applied at trial, was unconstitutionally vague.

III. Whether the military judge’s denial of the defense counsel’s request for an instruction addressing the victim’s capacity to consent and the relevance of her intoxication deprived LCpl Gomez of a defense or seriously impaired his ability to present a defense.

This week at SCOTUS: A petition for certiorari was filed in Herrmann v. United States, No. 17-593, on October 11, 2017. CAAF affirmed Sergeant (E-5) Herrmann’s conviction of reckless endangerment for the pencil packing of reserve parachutes by applying a plain-language meaning of the term likely in the element of conduct likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, in United States v. Herrmann, 76 M.J. 304 (C.A.A.F. Jun. 19, 2017) (CAAFlog case page).

An extension of time to file a cert. petition was granted in Cash v. United States, No. 17A415. CAAF granted and summarily affirmed on July 25, 2017. 76 M.J. 478. The Army CCA summarily affirmed the trial result without issuing a written opinion.

The Solicitor General received a second extension of time to file the requested response to the cert. petition in Bartee.

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

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

Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Short, No. 17-0187/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether government counsel committed prosecutorial misconduct when they made improper argument after repeatedly eliciting inadmissible testimony.

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

Followed by:

United States v. Gonzalez-Gomez, No. 17-0200/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether dilatory post-trial processing violated Appellant’s due process rights and warrants relief when 782 days elapsed between docketing at the Army Court and opinion.

Case Links:
• ACCA opinion (75 M.J. 965)
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Army Gov’t Appellate Div.) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, October 25, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Bailey, No. 17-0265/CG (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Upon request by the defense counsel and using a defense-drafted instruction, should the military judge have provided the members with an explanation of the term “incapable.”
II. Whether the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals is ambiguous as to whether the affirmed sentence included forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Case Links:
• CGCCA opinion
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Coast Guard Gov’t App. Div.) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Riesbeck, No. 17-0208/CG (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the members of Appellant’s court-martial panel were properly selected.
II. Whether Appellant was deprived of a fair trial, or the appearance of a fair trial, where a majority of the panel members were former victim advocates and the military judge denied a challenge for cause against one of them.

Case Links:
• CGCCA opinion
• Blog post: CGCCA Finds Appellant Waived Challenge to Panel Make-up 
• Blog post: CAAF reverses
• CGCCA opinion
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Coast Guard Appellate Gov’t Div.) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on October 30, 2017.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at the Florida International University College of Law:

United States v. Swafford, No. S32435

Issue:
Was Appellant denied effective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to move to suppress appellant’s statements to investigators made while in post-trial confinement for a previous court-martial?

This week at the CGCCA: The The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule – finally available on the CCA’s new website – shows no scheduled oral arguments at the CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s shows no scheduled oral arguments.

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

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on October 24, 2017.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Bodoh, No. 20150218

Issues:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR VIOLATION OF R.C.M. 707.
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY INSTRUCTING THE PANEL THAT A NEGLIGENT MENS REA WAS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE APPELLANT’S OTHERWISE LAWFUL CONDUCT CRIMINAL.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on October 24, 2017. The argument will be heard at the Florida International University College of Law.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA has a new website, but the link to its docket doesn’t work.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on October 31, 2017.

This week at SCOTUS: A petition for certiorari was filed in Tso v. United States, No. 17-479, on September 28, 2017. On May 17, 2017, CAAF summarily affirmed the NMCCA’s decision in Tso in light of its decisions in United States v. McClour, 76 M.J. 23 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (CAAFlog case page), and United States v. Bartee, 76 M.J.141 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (CAAFlog case page). I noted CAAF’s grant of review in this post.

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

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear the first oral arguments of the 2017 term this week, on Tuesday and Wednesday. The court will hear oral argument in four cases and on one motion:

Tuesday, October 10, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

United States v. Jacobsen, No. 17-0408/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the trial counsel’s certification that evidence is “substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding” is conclusive for purposes of establishing appellate jurisdiction under Article 62(a)(1)(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Case Links:
• ACCA Order (Feb. 6, 2017) (CAAFlog link)
• ACCA Order (Mar. 16, 2017) (CAAFlog link)
• Appellant’s (Army Gov’t Appellate Div.) brief
• Appellee’s (Jacobsen) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Amicus brief in support of Appellant (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.)
• Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Guardado, No. 17-0183/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the Army court incorrectly found that the military judge’s panel instructions were harmless error in light of United States v. Hills.

II. Whether the Army court incorrectly ruled that an offense defined by the President cannot preempt a general Article 134, UCMJ, offense, and that preemption is not jurisdictional in such circumstances.

Case Links:
• ACCA opinion (75 M.J. 889)
• Blog post: The Army CCA dissects Hills
• Blog post: CAAF to review the Army CCA’s decision in Guardado
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Hennis, No. 17-0263/AR (motion to compel funding) (CAAFlog case page)

Case Links:
• Defense motion
• Government Division answer
• Government Division response to CAAF order
• Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, October 11, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

United States v. Mangahas, No. 17-0434/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the lower court erred in finding no due process violation when the Government was inactive for over 17 years before investigating a claim of rape, violating LtCol Mangahas’ Fifth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

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

Followed by:

United States v. Pugh, No. 17-0306/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge erred in finding that AFI 90-507 serves no valid military purpose and dismissing the additional charge and its specification.

Case Links:
• AFCCA opinion
• Blog post: CAAF grants review of post-trial Article 62 appeal
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (A.F. App. Gov’t Div.) answer
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on October 30, 2017.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on October 24, 2017. The argument will be heard at the Florida International University College of Law.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA has a new website, but the link to its docket doesn’t work.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.