CAAFlog » TWIMJ

This week at SCOTUS: A new cert. petition (available here) was filed in Cooper v. United States, No. 18-423, on May 13, 2019. In United States v. Cooper, 78 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 12, 2019) (CAAFlog case page), a nearly-unanimous court found finds that the failure to request individual military defense counsel after a military judge discusses the right to make such a request with the accused is a knowing and intentional waiver of the right. The question presented in the petition is:

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exceeded its statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 867(c) when it took action with respect to a matter of fact.

The petition asserts:

The CAAF reversed the lower court because it found Cooper knowingly and intelligently waived his right to IMC. (Pet. App. 4a, 16a.) But what a defendant knew or understood at any given moment in time is a historical fact: making a state of mind determination calls for a “recital of external events and the credibility of their narrators.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S.99, 110 (1995) (internal quotations omitted).

The CAAF took action on a matter of fact—an authority specifically withheld from CAAF and provided to the NMCCA. Compare 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) with 10 U.S.C. §867(c). In exercising its authority under 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), the NMCCA found, as fact, that Cooper did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to IMC. Without so much as a declaration that this finding was clear error, the CAAF disagreed.

Pet at 12.

Additionally, the Solicitor General requested and has received an extension of time – until June 22, 2019 – to seek certiorari of CAAF’s decision in United States v. Briggs, 78 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 22, 2019) (CAAFlog case page).

Finally, the cert. petition in Hale was distributed for conference on May 30, 2019.

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 infour cases this week:

Tuesday, May 21, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. English, No. 19-0050/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals can find the unlawful force, as alleged, factually insufficient and still affirm the finding based on a theory of criminality not presented at trial.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

Followed by:

United States v. Navarette, No. 19-0066/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the Army Court erroneously denied appellant a post-trial R.C.M. 706 inquiry by requiring a greater showing than a non-frivolous, good faith basis articulated by United States v. Nix, 15 C.M.A. 578, 582, 36 C.M.R 76, 80 (1965).
II. Whether the Army Court erred when it held that submitting matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), was evidence of Appellant’s competence during appellate proceedings.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

Wednesday, May 22, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Coleman, No. 19-0087/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether Specification 1 of Charge VII is multiplicious with Specification 1 of Charge I, as they are part of the same transaction.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

Followed by:

United States v. Hyppolite, II., Nos.19-0119/AF & 19-0197/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Granted issue: Whether the military judge’s erroneous admission of evidence regarding Specifications 1, 2, and 3 as a common plan or scheme for Specifications 4 and 5 was harmless.

Certified issue: Did the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals err when it found the military judge abused his discretion by ruling that the evidence regarding Specifications 1, 2, and 3 could be considered as evidence of a common plan or scheme for Specifications 4 and 5.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Blog post: JAG cross-certifies
Granted Issue: Appellant’s brief
Granted Issue: Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief (granted issue
Certified Issue: Cross-Appellant’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Certified Issue: Cross-Appellee’s brief
Certified Issue: Cross-Appellant’s (Gov’t Div.) 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 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 Hale. 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 May 21, 2019.

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 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 Court denied cert. in King on April 29. Additionally, a new cert. petition (available here) was filed in Hale v. United States, No. 18-1383, on May 2, 2019. In United States v. Hale, 78 M.J. 268 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 6, 2019) (CAAFlog case page), a majority of CAAF found that evidence of conduct that was not subject to prosecution under the UCMJ was properly used to prove intent associated with conduct that was subject to prosecution. The petition presents the following questions:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in relying on factual sufficiency of the evidence to resolve a question of plain error, where the alleged error related to a legal defect in jurisdiction.

2. Whether instructions focusing “on or about” the charged dates invited a general verdict based on conduct outside of the court-martial’s jurisdiction.

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

This week at CAAF: CAAF will not hold oral arguments on May 7-8, 2019. The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on May 21, 2019.

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 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: 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 argument date at CAAF is May 7, 2019, however CAAF’s website should no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday April 30, 2019, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Clark, No. 20170023

Issues:
I. Whether the miltary judge erred by finding statements from two CID agents made during appellant’s videotaped interrogation were not “statements” for R.C.M. 914 purposes?

II. If the military judge erred, do the good faith loss or harmless error doctrines otherwise apply when the military judge made a previous ruling that “no evidence of bad faith on the part of any Government actor” existed in the government’s loss of one of the five discs from appellant’s videotaped interrogation?

III. If error exists and the good faith loss or harmless error doctrines do not apply: (1) what evidence and testimony should have been excluded; and (2) what is the proper test, if any, for this court to apply prejudice?

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 Wedesnday, May 1, 2019, at 1 p.m.:

United States v. Sager, No. 201400356

Case Summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contactin violation of Article120, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §920(2012). The Members sentenced Appellant to twenty-four months of confinement and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered it executed.

Issue: This case is before this Court for further review after our initial decision on direct appeal was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and after this Court granted the government’s request for reconsideration of its opinion on remand. May the Court now consider the government’s argument, raised for the first time, that the members announced a general verdict?

See United States v. Sager, 76 M.J. 158 (C.A.A.F. Mar. 21, 2017) (CAAFlog case page).

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

Tuesday, April 23, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Gonzales, No. 18-0347/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether aggravated sexual contact of a child is a lesser included offense of rape of a child.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

Followed by:

United States v. Haynes, No. 18-0359/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether an appellant is authorized to request Pierce credit for the first time at a Court of Criminal Appeals.

II. If the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that the failure to request Pierce credit below constituted waiver, was its actual review of this issue under its article 66(c), UCMJ authority still sufficient?

Case Links:
ACCA opinion (77 M.J. 753)
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

Wednesday, April 24, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Rodriguez, No.18-0350/CG (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether United States v. Orben, which established what the government must show to prove intent for indecent liberties under Article 134 (the precursor to Article 120b), applies to the intent element of Article 120b(c), sexual abuse of a child.

Case Links:
CGCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on April 30, 2019.

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 next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on May 2, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in King has been distributed for conference on April 26. 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 April 23, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on April 30, 2019.

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 next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on May 2, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: The SG waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in King. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week. Both are Project Outreach arguments:

Tuesday, April 9, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., the University of Kansas School of Law in Lawrence, Kansas:

United States v. Frost, No. 18-0362/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge erred in admitting hearsay statements as prior consistent statements under Mil.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(i) where the defense theory posited the improper influence or motive preceded the allegedly consistent statements.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

Wednesday, April 10, 2019, at 9 a.m., at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas:

United States v. Harris, No.18-0364/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army court erroneously affirmed the military judge’s denial of 291 days of Allen credit for pretrial confinement Appellant served in a civilian confinement facility awaiting disposition of state offenses for which he was later court-martialed.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion (78 M.J. 521)
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Friday, April 12, 2019, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Banks, No. 20170261

Issue: Whether the court-martial lacked personal jurisdiction over appellant.

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: A new cert. petition was docketed in King v. United States, No. 18-1254, on March 28, 2019. In United States v. King, 78 M.J. 218 (C.A.A.F. Jan. 4, 2019) (CAAFlog case page), CAAF found a conviction of viewing child pornography to be legally sufficient even though computer forensics could not conclusively prove that the images were knowingly viewed. The cert. petition is available here. The question presented is:

Whether the Court of Appeals relied upon permissive inferences that violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in finding Petitioner’s conviction legally sufficient.

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 before CAAF are on April 9-10, 2019. They are Project Outreach arguments at the University of Kansas School of Law in Lawrence, Kansas (April 9), and Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (April 10).

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument before the Army CCA is on April 12, 2019.

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: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court.

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week, both on Wednesday, March 27, 2019, beginning at 9:30:

United States v. Lewis, No.19-0109/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he suppressed SPC Lewis’s third statement as involuntary under Military Rule of Evidence 304.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

Note: This case is an Article 62 interlocutory appeal, and so the only briefs are the initial pleadings to CAAF.

Hasan v. U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and United States, No. 19-0054/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Major Hasan seeks extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus ordering the judges of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals to disqualify themselves from his case.

Case Links:
Writ petition
Gov’t Div. Answer
Petitioner’s reply
Blog post: CAAF orders Gov’t Div. to re-brief
Gov’t Div. re-brief
Reply to re-brief

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, March 28, 2019, at 1 p.m.:

United States v. Moore, No. 20180692

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge’s ruling “terminates the proceedings with respect to” Specification 2 of Additional Charge I.

II. Whether the military judge erred when he found that the Government’s pre-referral change to Specifications 2 and 3 of Additional Charge I constituted a major change.

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: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court.

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on March 27, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, March 21, 2019, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Sanchez, No. 20140735

Issue: Whether the military judge erroneously considered charged conduct under Military Rule of Evidence 413.

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: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court.

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on March 27, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on March 21, 2019.

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 Monday, March 11, 2019, at 1 p.m.:

United States v. Armendariz, NMCCA No.201700338

Case Summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of violating a lawful general order, violating a lawful general regulation, sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, and adultery in violation of Articles 92, 120, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 920, 934 (2016). The Members sentenced Appellant to eighteen months’ confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered it executed.

Issue: Did the military judge abuse his discretion in denying the defense’s motion to suppress evidence seized during searches on 25-26 July 2016 of MSgt Armendariz’s body, phones, vehicle, office, and office wall locker?

Significant military justice event this week: CAAF’s 2019 Continuing Legal Educationand Training Program is this week, on Wednesday and Thursday, March 6-7, at American University Washington College of Law. Additional information is available here.

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court.

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled date for oral arguments at CAAF is March 19, 2019

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on March 21, 2019.

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 next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on March 11, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Larrabee was denied last week. I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court.

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled date for oral arguments at CAAF is March 19, 2019

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on March 5, 2019.

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 an oral argument in one case this week, on Friday, March 1, 2019, that appears to be a rescheduling of an argument originally scheduled for January 31:

United States v. Baas, No. 201700318

Case Summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of conspiracy, one specification of making a false official statement, two specifications of committing a sexual act upon a child, two specifications of producing child pornography with intent to distribute, and two specifications of distributing child pornography in violation of Articles 81, 107, 120b, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 881, 907, 920b, and 934 (2012). The appellant was sentenced to fifteen years’ confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the dishonorable discharge, ordered it executed.

Issues:
I. Did the military judge abuse his discretion in admitting the Diatherix gonorrhea test results and the related testimony of Drs. Hobbs and Kafer?

II. Did the Diatherix gonorrhea test results and the related testimony of Drs. Hobbs and Kafer constitute testimonial hearsay, the admission of which violated the Sixth Amendment?

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: CAAF will hear oral arguments in four cases this week:

Tuesday, February 19, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.

United States v. McDonald, No. 18-0308/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge erred in instructing the panel that a negligent mens rea was sufficient to make otherwise lawful conduct criminal.

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

Followed by:

United States v. Gleason, No. 18-0305/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army Court erred by affirming a novel specification covered by an enumerated Art. 134, UCMJ offense.

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.

United States v. Tovarchavez, No. 18-0371/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army Court erred, first, in finding that this Court overruled sub silencio the Supreme Court holding in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967), and this Court’s own holdings in United States v. Wolford, 62 M.J. 418, 420 (C.A.A.F. 2006), and in United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350, 357 (C.A.A.F. 2016), and, consequently, in testing for prejudice in this case using the standard for nonconstitutional error.

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

Followed by:

United States v. Voorhees, No. 18-0372/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the AFCCA erred in finding no plain error despite trial counsel’s argument on findings that personally attacked appellant and trial defense counsel, commented on Appellant’s silence, expressed his personal opinions, bolstered his own credibility, vouched for government witnesses, speculated, and made reference to facts not in evidence.

II. Whether the AFCCA erred in finding that the specifications alleging violations of Article 133, UCMJ, stated an offense despite the fact that they lack words of criminality or a mens rea.

III. Whether plain error occurred when the military judge failed to instruct the members that mens rea was an element of an offense under Article 133.

Case Links:
First AFCCA opinion
Second AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week:

Thursday, February 21, 2019, at 2 p.m.:

United States v. Pacheco, No. 20150725

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’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 next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on March 1, 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 February 19, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in two cases this week:

Tuesday, February 12, 2019, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Steele, No. 20170303

Issues:
I. Whether the convening authority improperly approved the appellant’s sentence without a substantially verbatim transcript, in violation of Rule for Courts-Martial 1103(f)(1).

II. Whether the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the appellant’s conviction for indecent exposure.

Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at noon:

United States v. Lopez, No. 20170386

Issues:
I. Whether the Fort Benning garrison commander had the legal authority to order searches in privatized housing at Porter Village.

II. Does MCOE regulation number 190-11 prohibit the possession of unregistered firearms (or other applicable weapons) in Porter Village? If not, did the garrison commander still have a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed to search appellant’s house?

III. Assuming there was not probable cause to search appellant’s house, does the good faith exception apply? See United States v. Thomas, 908 F.3d 68 (4th cir. 2018); see also United States v. Perkins, 78 M.J. 550 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App. 2018) (certificate of rev. filed) __ M.M. __ (C.A.A.F. 10 Sep. 2018).

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 Thursday, February 14, 2019, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. King, No. 201800016

Case Summary:
A panel of officer and enlisted members sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, a Master-At-Arms Seaman (E-3), contrary to his pleas, of one specification of sexual assault in violation of Article 120, UCMJ. The members sentenced him to confinement for eight years, reduction to the pay grade of E-1, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. The CA ordered the sentence executed, except for the dishonorable discharge.

Issues:
I. Does Article 120(b)(1)(B) of the UCMJ fail to provide adequate standards by which an ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, whether a sexual encounter would be lawful, rendering it unconstitutionally vague?

II. Were the findings instructions plainly erroneous because lack of consent was not included as an element of the offense of sexual assault by bodily harm, and because the instructions would have permitted a conviction without the prosecution proving lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt?