Significant military justice event this week: A meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel will be held on Friday, January 30, 2015, at One Liberty Center, Suite 150, Conference Room, 875 North Randolph Street, Arlington VA 22203. Additional information is available here.
This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court.
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week, both on Tuesday, January 27, 2015, beginning at 9 a.m.:
United States v. Olson, No. 14-0166/AF (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the military judge erred by denying the Defense’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from Appellant’s house because the totality of the circumstances indicated that Appellant’s consent to search was involuntary.
United States v. Muwwakkil, No. 15-0112/AR (CAAFlog case page)
I. Whether the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in its application of both the federal Jencks Act (18 U.S.C. § 3500) and Rule for Courts-Martial 914.
II. Whether the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in its deference to the military judge’s findings and conclusions, as she failed to consider the totality of the case, and instead made a presumption of harm before ordering an extraordinary remedy. See, e.g., Killian v. United Utates, 368 U.S. 231 (1961).
• ACCA opinion (73 M.J. 859)
• Blog post: The Army enforces Jencks
• Blog post: The Army JAG certifies Jencks issue in Muwwakkil
• Appellant’s (Government) brief
• Appellee’s brief
• Blog post: Argument preview
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, Monday, January 26, 2015, at 2 p.m.:
United States v. Burke, No. 20120448
I. United States v. Miranda requires that a suspect be read his rights when the suspect is interrogated while the subject’s freedom of action is deprived in any significant way. Here, Appellant’s commander ordered Appellant to report to the battalion headquarters to perform “special duty” where he was informed of his wife’s death, he was not dismissed by his superiors or otherwise free to leave, and then was interviewed by civilian law enforcement. Thus, when Appellant was questioned, his freedom of action was deprived in a significant way, and the military judge abused his discretion when [he] admitted Appellant’s statements to law enforcement absent Miranda warnings.
II. Servicemembers must be read their Article 31(b), UCMJ, rights when they are suspected of an offense and questioned by a party subject to the code or otherwise an agent of one subject to the code. Here, civilian law enforcement agents coordinated a suspect interview with appellant’s command, came onto the military installation, and conducted the interview in the battalion conference room, appellant’s appointed place of duty. In availing themselves of the benefits of using the military command and installation to conduct their suspect interview, the government cannot show that the subtle pressures of the military environment were not present, and thus, the military judge erred in ruling that article 31(b) rights warnings were not required prior to questioning.
This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. O’Connor, No. 38420, on Friday, January 30, 2015, at 10 a.m.
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.