CAAFlog » TWIMJ

This week at SCOTUS: It looks like Acevedo did not file a cert. petition, so I’ve removed the case from my list. I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m now tracking just 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.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on August 8, 2018.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website is inaccessible.

This week at the CGCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Coast Guard CCA is on August 9, 2018. The argument will occur at the NMCCA’s courtroom in the Washington Navy Yard.

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 two cases:

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.

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

Tuesday, July 10, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Davis, No. 20160069

Issue: WHETHER SPECIFICATION 2 OF CHARGE IV IS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE DISPLAYING A VIDEO ON A CELL PHONE SCREEN DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF “BROADCASTING” UNDER ARTICLE 120(C) UCMJ?

Friday, July 13, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Norris, No. 20160262

Issues:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED UNDER UNITED STATES V. REYNOLDS, 29 M.J. 105 (C.M.A. 1989) BY ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED ACTS TO PROVE APPELLANT’S “INTENT TO DOMINATE AND CONTROL” HIS WIFE AND APPELLANT’S “MOTIVE OF HOSTILITY”?

II. WHETHER LYING ON TOP OF ANOTHER IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE FORCE FOR A CONVICTION OF FORCIBLE RAPE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 120 (2006)?

Disclosure: I represent Captain Norris in my personal capacity and will present this oral argument.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Coast Guard CCA is on August 9, 2018. The argument will occur at the NMCCA’s courtroom in the Washington Navy Yard.

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

This week at SCOTUS: In the wake of its opinion in Ortiz v. United States, 585 U.S. __, No. 16-1423 (June 22, 2018) (analyzed here), the Supreme Court denied the petitions in Alexander, Abdirahman, Cash, and Richards (all of which involved Ortiz trailer issues). The Court also denied the petitions in Bales (denial noted here) and Gray (analysis of CAAF’s opinion is here and here).

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 term. Details about the cases reviewed by CAAF this term are available on our 2017 Term of Court page.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on July 10, 2018.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Collins on Thursday, June 28, 2018, at 10 a.m. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Coast Guard CCA is on August 9, 2018. The argument will occur at the NMCCA’s courtroom in the Washington Navy Yard.

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

This week at SCOTUS: The Court issued a decision in Ortiz v. United States on Friday, June 22, 2018 (analyzed 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: 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.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on July 10, 2018.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Collins on Thursday, June 28, 2018, at 10 a.m. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Coast Guard CCA is on August 9, 2018. The argument will occur at the NMCCA’s courtroom in the Washington Navy Yard.

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 Condon was distributed for conference on September 24. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking nine cases:

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.

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

Thursday, June 21, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Quill, No. 20160454

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge erred by denying a defense challenge for cause.

II. Whether the military judge erred by admitting appellant’s confession without corroborating evidence under MRE 304(c).

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on June 28, 2018.

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 cert. petitions in Gray and Bales were distributed for conference on June 21, and the SG waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Condon. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking nine cases:

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.

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

Tuesday, June 12, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Morgan, No. 20160573

Issue: [Whether t]he military judge’s repeated exclusion of admissible evidence was an abuse of discretion which deprived SSG Morgan of the right to adequately defend himself.

Friday, June 15, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Lopez, No. 20140973

Issue: [doesn’t load on the CCA’s website]

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on June 28, 2018.

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 filed this response to the cert. petition in Gray on May 18, and Gray filed this reply on May 31. The Solicitor General also waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Bales. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking nine cases:

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

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on June 15, 2018.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on June 28, 2018.

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: I’m tracking three new military cases at the Supreme Court.

First, a petition for certiorari was filed in Bales v. United States, No. 17-1583, on May 16 (discussed here). Second, a pro se petition for certiorari was filed in Condon v. United States, No. 17-0977, on May 22. In United States v. Condon, 77 M.J. 244 (C.A.A.F. Mar. 1, 2018) (CAAFlog case page), CAAF unanimously concluded that it was harmless to show the members a video of Condon’s interrogation during which he invoked his right to counsel. Finally, an extension of time to submit a petition for certiorari in Acevedo v. United States, No. 17A1287, was granted until July 6. In United States v. Acevedo, 77 M.J. 185 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 6, 2018) (CAAFlog case page), a majority of CAAF found the conviction of kidnapping by inveiglement (luring or enticing) is legally sufficient.

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

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

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on June 15, 2018.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on June 28, 2018.

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 filed this brief in opposition to the cert. petition in Gray. 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 has completed its oral argument calendar for the term. Details about the cases reviewed by CAAF this term are available at our 2017 Term of Court page.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, May 23, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Jesko, No. 20160439

Issues:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE IMPROPERLY APPLIED MIL. R. EVID. 413 UNDER UNITED STATES V. HILLS BY CONSIDERING CHARGED MISCONDUCT FOR CHARGE I, SPECIFICATIONS 2-4?

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE IMPROPERLY APPLIED MIL. R. EVID. 413 UNDER UNITED STATES V. WRIGHT BY CONSIDERING UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT FOR CHARGE I, SPECIFICATIONS 2-4?

III. EVEN IF THE MILITARY JUDGE IMPROPERLY APPLIED MIL. R. EVID. 413 BY CONSIDERING CHARGED AND/OR UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT, WAS THE EVIDENCE SO OVERWHELMING THAT ANY ERROR DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE FINDINGS OF GUILTY FOR CHARGE I, SPECIFICATIONS 2-4?

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on June 28, 2018.

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

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

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still inaccessible from the public internet (discussed here). Nevertheless, the Army CCA will hear oral argument in two cases this week:

Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Mobley, No. 20160795

Issue: Whether the military judge committed plain error by not dismissing or merging Specification 3 of the Charge as multiplicous with Specification 2 of the Charge in light of United States v. Forrester.

Thursday, May 17, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Wilson, No. 20160342

Issues:
Assignment of Error I. Whether the military judge committed plain error by permitting Dr. Kennedy to act as a human lie detector.

Assignment of Error III. Whether defense counsel were ineffective for failing to object to Dr. Kennedy’s inadmissible testimony.

Supplemental Assignment of Error I. Whether defense counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce medical records demonstrating that the charged offenses could not have taken place on 8 June 2007.

Supplemental Assignment of Error II. Whether defense counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce evidence that the basic noncommissioned officer course required appellant to reside in the barracks.

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

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

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still inaccessible from the public internet (discussed here). Nevertheless, the Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Friday, May 11, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Manning, No. 20130739

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge misinterpreted the definition of “exceeds authorized access” in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) (Specification 13 of Charge II)?

II. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction for stealing, purloining, or converting the “USF-I GAL” (Specification 16 of Charge II)?

III. Whether the evidence was factually sufficient to sustain Appellant’s convictions for stealing, purloining, or converting items of a value of $1,000 or more (Specifications 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16 of Charge II)? (Update: This issue was removed in an amended notice of hearing)

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

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week, both on Tuesday, May 1, 2018:

At 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Hendrix, No. 18-0133/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion by dismissing the charge and specifications with prejudice for a violation of R.C.M. 707.

Case Links:
• ACCA opinion
• Blog post: CAAF grants review
• Appellant’s brief (supplement to the petition for review)
• Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) brief (answer to the supplement)
• Appellant’s reply brief (reply to the answer to the supplement)
• Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Christensen, No. No. 17-0604/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether Appellant was subject to court-martial jurisdiction.

Case Links:
• ACCA opinion
• 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’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: 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 May 1, 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 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 filed this response to the supplemental brief filed in Abdirahman, et al. (the Ortiz trailer cases) (brief noted here), seeking application of CAAF’s decision in United States v. Mangahas, 77 M.J. 220 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 6, 2018) (CAAFlog case page), to one of the petitioners. The response includes two noteworthy disclosures:

The government has not yet decided whether to seek further review in Mangahas. Under the circumstances, however, the government does not oppose Briggs’s request that his case be remanded to the CAAF so that the military courts can consider in the first instance his claimed entitlement to relief under that decision.

A cert. petition must be filed within 90 days of a CAAF decision, and I don’t see any docket entry for a petition for reconsideration in Mangahas, so the deadline for a petition from the SG seems to be Friday, May 4, 2018 CAAF denied a Government Division motion for reconsideration on March 15, 2018, so the deadline seems to be May 14, 2018 (because May 13 is a Sunday).

The SG also received an extension of time to file a response to the cert petition in Gray. I’m not aware of any other 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 May 1, 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 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, April 17, 2018, at 1 p.m., at the Marshall-Wythe School of Law, The College of William & Mary, 613 South Henry St, Williamsburg, VA 23185:

United States v. Perkins, NMCCA No. 201700077

Case Summary:
A panel of officer and enlisted members sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of conspiracy to commit the offense of larceny and one specification of violating a lawful general order in violation of Articles 81 and 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 881 and 892 (2012). The members sentenced the appellant to reduction to pay grade E-1 and a bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered it executed.

Issue: DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR IN DENYING A DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM THE APPELLANT’S HOME ON 1 OCTOBER 2015 AND ALL EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM THAT SEARCH?

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 May 1, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still inaccessible from the public internet (discussed here). Nevertheless, I can report that the Army CCA will hear oral argument in at least one case this week, on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Henning, No. 20160572 (prior CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he admitted evidence that two other people who were not accused of any misconduct were excluded as possible contributors of DNA found in the alleged victim’s underwear.

II. Whether pulling underwear to the side is legally sufficient to constitute bodily harm for the offense of sexual assault by causing bodily harm.

Disclosure: I represent MAJ Henning in my personal capacity and will argue this case.

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 April 17, 2018.