CAAFlog » TWIMJ

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?

This week at SCOTUS: A petition for certiorari (available here) was filed in Andrews v. United States, No. 18-343, on September 13th.

In United States v. Andrews, 77 M.J. 393 (C.A.A.F. May 22, 2018) (CAAFlog case page), CAAF unanimously rejected the Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Government Division’s argument that the failure to object to improper argument at trial waives any error on appeal, and found any improper argument by the prosecution in the case to be harmless. The cert petition challenges CAAF’s application of the harmless error test, asserting that “CAAF does not adequately distinguish between the improper arguments of military prosecutors that infringe on an accused’s constitutional rights and those that do not.” Pet. at 3.

In other news, the Solicitor General waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in 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: 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 three cases this week:

Wednesday, September 26, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Rice, No. 20160695

Issues:
I. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR BY NOT DISMISSING SPECIFICATIONS 2-4 OF CHARGE II AS A VIOLATION OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE?

II. DID APPELLANT WAIVE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY NOT DISMISSING SPECIFICATIONS 2-4 OF CHARGE II AS A VIOLATION OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE, WHEN APPELLANT RECEIVED HIS REQUESTED RELIEF FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WHEN THAT COURT DISMISSED APPELLANT’S CONVICTION OF THESE OFFENSES?

III. EVEN IF THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY NOT DISMISSING SPECIFICATIONS 2-4 OF CHARGE II AS A VIOLATION OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE AND APPELLANT DID NOT WAIVE THE ISSUE, WHAT ERROR EXISTS AT THIS TIME WHICH MATERIALLY PREJUDICES APPELLANT’S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS WHEN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS DISMISSED APPELLANT’S CONVICTION TO THE SAME POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS?

Wednesday, September 26, 2018, at 3:45 p.m.:

United States v. Turner, No. 20160131

Issues:
I. WHETHER SPECIALIST TURNER’S CONVICTION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT.

II. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IMPERMISSIBLY PRESENTED CONFLICTING THEORIES OF LIABILITY AT THE TRIALS OF SPECIALIST TURNER AND HIS CO-ACCUSED.

Thursday, September 27. 2018, at 2 p.m.:

United States v. Hasan, No. 20130781

Issues:
I. WHETHER APPELLATE COUNSEL SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO REVIEW THE FOLLOWING SEALED APPELLATE EXHIBITS:  APP. EX. 41; APP. EX. 334; APP. EX. 336; APP. EX. 347, ENCLS. 1-3; APP EX. 348; APP EXS. 352-352; APP EX. 389; APP EX. 390; APP EX. 397; APP. EX. 426; AND TRIAL TRANSCRIPT PAGES 2195-2208.  SPECIFICALLY, COUNSEL SHOULD ADDRESS THE POTENTIALLY PRIVILEGED NATURE OF THESE EXHIBITS UNDER MIL. R. EVID. 502.

II. WHETHER APPELLANT SHOULD BE GRANTED THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED COUNSEL ON APPEAL. COUNSEL SHOULD BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS THE NECESSITY, AVAILABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF APPOINTING LEARNED COUNSEL.

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 October 2, 2018.

Significant military justice event this week: The 6th annual Joint Appellate Advocacy Training is this Tuesday-Thursday, September 18-20, 2018 at the Rosenthal Theater, Fort Myer-Henderson Hall in Arlington, VA. Additional details here.

This week at SCOTUS: A petition for certiorari (available here) was filed in Larrabee v. United States, No. 18-306, on Friday, September 14, 2018. The petition challenges the constitutionality of court-martial jurisdiction over retired members of the armed forces who receive retired pay. The exercise of such jurisdiction was our #1 Military Justice Story of 2017.

Staff Sergeant Larrabee is a retired member of the Marine Corps who pleaded guilty to sexual assault and indecent recording (offenses that occurred after he transferred to the retired list) and was sentenced to confinement for 8 years, a reprimand, and a dishonorable discharge. All confinement in excess of 10 months was suspended pursuant to a pretrial agreement. The Navy-Marine Corps CCA affirmed the findings and sentence in 2017 (link to slip op.). CAAF granted review as a trailer to United States v. Dinger, 77 M.J. 447 (C.A.A.F. Jun. 18, 2018) (CAAFlog case page), and then summarily affirmed in light of Dinger in August.

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 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 next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on September 26, 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 next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on October 2, 2018.

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 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. Nevertheless, this week CAAF will hear the first two oral arguments of next term:

Wednesday, September 12, 2018, at 3 p.m., at the Keenan Ceremonial Courtroom, 500 Pearl Street, New York:

United States v. Eugene, No. 18-0209/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether Appellant’s request to Criminal Investigation Command (CID) that his cell phone be returned was a withdrawal of the third party consent to search given by Appellant’s wife in Appellant’s absence.

II. Whether the Army Court erred in determining the applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine where (1) the CID agents failed to take any steps to obtain a warrant and (2) the case took a “dead-end” until the warrantless search.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2018, at 11 a.m., at the Fordham University School of Law in New York:

United States v. Criswell, No. 18-0091/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying a defense motion to suppress the accusing witness’s in-court identification of Appellant.

Case Links:
ACCA decision
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Law student amicus in support of appellant
Law student amicus in support of the appellee (Gov’t Div.)
Blog post: Argument preview (in progress)

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday, September 11, 2018, at 12:30 p.m., at Pepperdine University School of Law, in Malibu, CA:

United States v. Beer, No. 20160659

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge abused his discretion by summarily denying the panel’s request for additional evidence.

II. Whether appellant’s conviction of signing a false official statement in violation of Article 107, UCMJ, is legally and factually sufficient.

III. Whether appellant’s sentence is inappropriately severe.

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 October 2, 2018.

Significant military justice event this week: The Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD) will hold a public meeting this Friday, September 7, 2018 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., at One Liberty Center, 875 N Randolph Street, Suite 150, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Additional details about the meeting are available here.

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 completed its oral argument calendar for the term. Details about the cases reviewed by CAAF this term are available on our 2017 Term of Court page.

The first oral argument of the 2018 term will occur on September 12, 2018, at the Keenan Ceremonial Courtroom, 500 Pearl Street, New York. The second will occur the following day, at the Fordham University School of Law in New York.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, September 5, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Myer, No. 20160490

Issues:
I. Whether appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel where defense counsel failed to reasonably investigate, present crucial evidence, and cross examine witnesses.

II. Whether Article 133 is unconstitutionally void for vaguesness as it applies to appellant’s conduct.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in two cases this week. On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, at 10 a.m., the court will hear oral argument in United States v. Hyppolite, No. 39358. On Thursday, September 6, 2018, at 10 a.m., the court will hear oral argument in United States v. Seeto, No. 39247. The argument in Seeto will not be open to the public. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, September 6, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Hernandez

Issue:
I. Whether the three specifications of the sole charge  were multiplicious where the three actions occurred nearly simultaneously, involved a single subject, and effectuated a single purpose?

The argument will occur in the United States Navy‐Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals Courtroom 1254 Charles Morris Street SE, Bldg. 58, Suite 320, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374.

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: CAAF completed its oral argument calendar for the term. Details about the cases reviewed by CAAF this term are available on our 2017 Term of Court page.

The first oral argument of the 2018 term will occur on September 12, 2018, at the Keenan Ceremonial Courtroom, 500 Pearl Street, New York. The second will occur the following day, at the Fordham University School of Law in New York.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, August 30, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Navarette, No. 20160786

Issues:
I. WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR A RCM 706 INQUIRY INTO THE PRESENT MENTAL CAPACITY OF APPELLANT.  SEE RCM 1203(C)(5) AND RCM 706.

II. WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR A RCM 706 INQUIRY TO ASSESS APPELLANT’S MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE. SEE RCM 916(B)(2); RCM 916(K); RCM 1210 (F)(2); AND UNITED STATES V. CAMPBELL, 57 M.J. 134 (2002).

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on September 5, 2018.

This week at the CGCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Coast Guard CCA is on September 6, 2018.

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: CAAF completed its oral argument calendar for the term. Details about the cases reviewed by CAAF this term are available on our 2017 Term of Court page. The planned first oral argument of the 2018 term is a Project Outreach argument on September 12, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on August 30, 2018.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on September 5, 2018.

This week at the CGCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Coast Guard CCA is on September 6, 2018.

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: CAAF completed its oral argument calendar for the term. Details about the cases reviewed by CAAF this term are available on our 2017 Term of Court page. The planned first oral argument of the 2018 term will be a Project Outreach argument on September 12, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on September 5, 2018.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on September 5, 2018.

This week at the CGCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Coast Guard CCA is on September 6, 2018.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Monday, August 13, 2018 at 1 p.m.:

United States v. Spinoza, No. 201700236

Case Summary: A general court-martial composed of officer members convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of stalking, assault consummated by battery, communicating a threat, fraternization, and unlawful entry. The members sentenced the appellant to be reprimanded and dismissed from the Naval Service. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and, except for the dismissal, ordered the sentence executed.

Issue: IF THE SEARCH OF LT SPINOZA’S CELLPHONE WAS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF CONSENT AND NOT SUPPORTED BY COMMAND AUTHORIZATION, WAS LT SPINOZA DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HIS DEFENSE TEAM DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH OF HIS CELLPHONE?

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 completed its oral argument calendar for the term. Details about the cases reviewed by CAAF this term are available on our 2017 Term of Court page. The planned first oral argument of the 2018 term will be a Project Outreach argument on September 12, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on August 8, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Griego, No. 20160487

I. Whether the convening authority’s action should be set aside because appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his defense counsel failed to communicate with him during the post-trial process and failed to submit matters to the convening authority on appellant’s behalf.

[II]. Whether the preemption doctrine precludes appellant’s convictions for violations of civil statutes incorporated into the ucmj through article 134.

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 September 5, 2018.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on is on Thursday, August 9, 2018, at 10 a.m., at the NMCCA’s courtroom at the Washington Navy Yard:

United States v. Livingstone 

Issue: Whether the military judge reversibly erred by failing
to instruct on mens rea with regard to the conduct
unbecoming charges?

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on August 13, 2018.