CAAFlog » TWIMJ

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 December 3, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on November 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 November 20, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: On Oct. 28 a new cert. petition was filed in McDonald v. United States, No. 19-557. The petition is available here. In United States v. McDonald, 78 M.J. 376 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 17, 2019) (CAAFlog case page), a unanimous CAAF held that the mens rea (mental state) for the offense of sexual assault by causing bodily harm in violation of Article 120(b)(1)(B) (2012), where the bodily harm is a nonconsensual sexual act, is only the general intent to commit the sexual act, because “the burden is on the actor to obtain consent, rather than the victim to manifest a lack of consent.”

The question presented in the McDonald cert. petition is:

Whether Congress’s omission of a mens reafor the offense of sexual assault by bodily harm means mere negligence as to the lack of consent suffices.

The Solicitor General waived the right to respond on Nov. 1.

In other news, the cert. petition in Hutchins was distributed for conference on Nov. 15. 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 oral argument in four cases this week:

Tuesday, November 5, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.

United States v. Jessie, No. 19-0192/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the Army court erred by considering military confinement policies but refusing to consider specific evidence of Appellant’s confinement conditions.

II. Whether the Army court conducted a valid Article 66 review when it failed to consider Appellant’s constitutional claims.

III. Whether Appellant’s constitutional rights were violated by a confinement facility policy that barred him from all forms of communication with his minor children without an individualized assessment demonstrating that an absolute bar was necessary.

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

Followed by:

United States v. Muller, No. 19-0230/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether rule 15.5 of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure is invalid because it conflicts with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, this Court’s precedent, the Joint Courts of Criminal Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure, the recently updated Joint Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the prior and current appellate rules of the other service Courts of Criminal Appeals.

II. Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals deprived Appellant of his due process right to raise issues on appeal when it denied his timely request to file a supplemental brief on issues arising during remand proceedings.

III. Whether a Court of Criminal Appeals must require certificates of correction to be accomplished, vice accepting documents via a motion to attach, when it finds a record of trial to be incomplete due to a missing exhibit.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Amicus brief: Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense in support of Appellant
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, November 6, 2019, at 9 a.m.

United States v. Davis, No. 19-0104/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the mens rea of “knowingly” applies to the consent element of Article 120c(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920c(2) (2016).

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

Followed by:

United States v. Turner, No. 19-0158/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the specification of Charge I alleging an attempted killing fails to state an offense because it does not explicitly, or by necessary implication, allege the attempted killing was unlawful.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (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 November 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 November 20, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petitions in Briggs and Collins have been distributed for conference on Nov. 8. Additionally, the Solicitor General filed this reply brief in Collins. The Solicitor General also waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Hutchins.

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 arguments at CAAF are on November 5, 2019.

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

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Da Silva, No. 39599, on Wednesday, October 30, 2019, at 10 a.m. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

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 November 20, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: A new cert. petition was filed in Hutchins v. United States, No. 19-489, on Oct. 11, 2019. The petition is available here. In United States v. Hutchins, 78 M.J. 437 (C.A.A.F. May 29, 2019) (CAAFlog case page), CAAF conducted its third review of the court-martial prosecution of Sergeant Hutchins for his participation in a 2006 kidnap-murder conspiracy in Iraq that is colloquially known as the Hamdania incident, and the court unanimously affirmed convictions of conspiracy, murder, and larceny. The question presented in the cert. petition is:

Whether the right under the Double Jeopardy Clause to the issue preclusive effect of an acquittal applies where precluded and un-precluded facts are alternative grounds for essential elements of a criminal charge.

Additionally, while it’s not yet on the Court’s website, an extension of time to file a cert. petition was requested in Voorhees v. United States. In United States v. Voorhees, 79 M.J. 5 (C.A.A.F. Jun. 27, 2019) (CAAFlog case page), CAAF unanimously found that the prosecutor’s personal attacks on defense counsel, personal attacks on the accused, expressions of personal opinion, bolstering, and vouching, amounted to grievous error, but nevertheless found the error harmless.

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 oral argument in three cases this week:

Tuesday, October 22, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.

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

Issues:
I. Whether a break in Appellant’s service foreclosed the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction.

II. Whether the charges arose in the Armed Forces, and fell within the subject matter jurisdiction of a capital court-martial.

III. Whether the court-martial had personal jurisdiction over Appellant.

IV. Whether the military judge denied appellant a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.

V. Whether the military judge abused his discretion in restricting defense counsel’s voir dire and in denying defense challenges for cause.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion (75 M.J. 796)
Blog post: ACCA affirms death for Hennis
Blog post: Hennis docketed at CAAF
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, October 23, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.

United States v. Bess, No. 19-0086/NA (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the convening authority’s selection of members violated the equal protection requirements of the Fifth Amendment.

II. Whether the convening authority’s selection of members constituted unlawful command influence.

III. Whether the lower court erred in affirming the military judge’s denial of Appellant’s motion to produce evidence of the racial makeup of potential members.

Case Links:
NMCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Amicus brief in support of Bess
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Guardado, No. 19-0139/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion by failing to grant Appellant Article 13, UCMJ, credit in consequence of the Howell v. United States, 75 M.J. 386 (C.A.A.F. 2016) violation present here.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply 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 October 30, 2019.

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: Daniels filed this brief in opposition to the Solicitor General’s petition. In other news, the Solicitor General received a second extension of time to file the requested response to the petition in Richards, and the Court denied the cert. petitions in Livingstone and Camacho.

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 oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah:

United States v. Rice, No. 19-0178/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment requires dismissal of Appellant’s convictions.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion (78 M.J. 649)
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply 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 October 30, 2019.

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 six cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF (and the first of the 2019 term) is scheduled for October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

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 October 30, 2019.

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 six cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is unreachable.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week on Monday, September 30, 2019, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Lee, No. 39531

Issue:
Whether the military judge abused his discretion in refusing to give a defense-requested instruction that the panel could consider reasonable mistake of fact as to consent as a factor when evaluating whether appellant’s conduct was indecent.

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 3, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.:

United States v. Nichol, No. 201800286

Case Summary: A general court-martial consisting of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of forcible rape, in violation of Article 120(a)(1), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920 (2012)), two specifications of sexual assault, in violation of Article 120(b)(1)(B), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920), and one specification of rape, in violation of Article 120(a)(5), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920). The members sentenced Appellant to 25 years’ confinement, reduction to paygrade E-1, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged

Issues:
[I]. Did the military judge err in admitting over Defense objection AOAN D.B.’s out-of-court statement pursuant to Military Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B)(i) and (ii)?

[II]. Did the Appellant waive objection on appeal to the military judge’s admission of Ms. D.R.’s out-of-court statement?

Disclosure: I represent the appellant in my personal capacity and will argue this case.

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Briggs has been rescheduled and will not be considered at the Oct. 1 conference. 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 completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

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 September 30, 2019.

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 Friday, September 27, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.:

United States v. Ayalacruz, No. 201800193

Case Summary: A special court-martial consisting of officer members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 892), one specification of simple assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 928), and one specification of disorderly conduct, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 934). The members sentenced Appellant to a reprimand, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

Issues:
I. Did the military judge violate Appellant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy when he instructed the court members to revise the announcement of their findings?

[II]A. Did the court members acquit Appellant of both elements of simple assault in the second announcement of their findings through improper exception and substitution?

[II]B. Did the language substituted by the court members in the second announcement of their findings fail to state an offense?

This week at SCOTUS: As discussed here, Collins filed his response to the Solicitor General’s cert. petition, and the alleged victims (of both Collins and Daniels) filed an amicus brief in support of the petition. In other news, the petitions in Briggs are Camacho are scheduled for conference on Oct. 1, and the solicitor general received an extension of time to file the requested response in Richards. 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 completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, September 19, 2019, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Smith, No. 20180156

Issue: Whether the court-martial was improperly convened where the convening authority considered criteria not listed in Article 25, UCMJ, when selecting panel members.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on September 30, 2019.

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 Friday, September 20, 2019, at 12:45 p.m.:

United States v. Kunishige, No. 201800110

Case Summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of violation of a lawful order, rapeand sexual abuse of a child, sexual assault, aggravated assault, assault consummated by battery, solicitation and distribution of child pornography, receipt and possession of child pornography, obstruction of justice, and adultery,in violation of Articles 92, 120, 120b, 128, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§892, 920, 920b, 928, 934 (2016). The members sentenced Appellant to thirty-nine years of confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorabled ischarge.The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the dishonorable discharge, ordered the sentence executed.

Issues:
I. The United States argues that Appellant waived his right to discovery of communications relating to the members’ selection process. Did Appellant waive his right to discovery in light of: 1) the civilian trial defense counsel’s two written motions; 2) the military judge’s order granting the motion to compel discovery; 3) the civilian trial defense counsel’s repeated attempts to enforce the military judge’s order during trial; and 4) the trial counsel’s conflicting statements about the existence of discovery and completeness of discovery provided?

II. Did the government’s actions in 1) disclosing responsive communications on the last day of trial during presentencing proceedings; and 2) disclosing additional responsive communications shortly before a post-trial Article 39(a) session constitute a discovery violation?

III. Was Appellant materially prejudiced by either alleged discovery violation?

Significant military justice event this week: The seventh annual Joint Appellate Advocacy Training is this week, on September 10-12, at the Rosenthal Theater, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Arlington, VA.

You must have base access to reach the theater. If you do not have base access, you will need to contact JBMHH security for a visitor pass. Otherwise, no registration or RSVP is required for the training.

This week at SCOTUS: One of the two respondents in Collins (& Daniels) requested an extension of time to respond to the Solicitor General’s cert. petition. Additionally, the respondent(s) in Richards also requested an extension of time to respond. Finally, the Solicitor General waived the right to respond in Camacho.

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 completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

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

United States v. Rapmund, No. 20170564

Issues:
I. Whether the definition of “drunk” in the panel instructions misrepresented the law by stating that any impairment by alcohol was sufficient for the offense of drunken operation of a vehicle, which led the panel members to improperly convict on the offenses of drunken operation of a vehicle, negligent homicide, and involuntary manslaughter.

II. Whether appellant’s involuntary manslaughter conviction was supported by sufficient evidence of culpable negligence.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on September 30, 2019.

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 September 27, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: As noted here, the Solicitor General filed a reply brief in Briggs. In the companion case of Collins (& Daniels), Daniels requested an extension of time to respond to the Government’s cert. petition. 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 completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on September 10, 2019. The argument will be held at the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on September 30, 2019.

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 petition for certiorari was filed on August 21 in Camacho v. United States, No. 19-243. In May, CAAF summarily affirmed the Army CCA’s decision in the case (available here) that rejected claims of unlawful command influence based on the Army’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) program. The petition presents five questions:

I. Whether the Army’s Sexual Harassment Assault Response and Prevention Program (SHARP) reversed the constitutional presumption of innocence, diluted the “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof in criminal prosecutions, violated Fundamental Due Process, and disregarded the Sixth Amendment’s guaranty of a full and fair trial.

II. Whether the trial court, conditioned by the SHARP program’s reversal of the presumption of innocence, deprived Petitioner of his Constitutional Right to Fundamental Due Process where it allowed 13 instances of serious prosecutorial misconduct, to include making material misrepresentations in open court about digital images with which the prosecution tampered and on which the prosecution relied at trial, which further deprived Petitioner of the ability to put on a complete defense.

III. Whether the trial court, influenced by the SHARP program’s degradation of the presumption of innocence, wrongly admitted an unsigned, undated, typed copy of an “apology” letter introduced as uncharged misconduct to prove Petitioner may have assaulted his spouse and the purported victim a decade earlier, and hearsay testimony of her mother describing a graphic and degrading sexual assault of her daughter, which she did not witness.

IV. Whether the Army Court, predisposed to affirming guilt due to the SHARP program, misapplied its 10 U.S.C. § 866 plenary de novo jurisdiction when it declined to weigh the credibility of the complaining witness, where the record was replete with indications of her lack of candor and untrustworthiness, in violation of this Court’s precedent in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence to support conviction).

V. Whether the Army Court, oriented to affirming guilt due to the SHARP program, failed to follow Sixth Amendment Supreme Court precedent when it declined to factor into its ineffective assistance of counsel analysis the trial judge’s having found 12 instances where trial defense counsel did not exercise reasonable due diligence to uncover and develop exonerating and mitigating evidence.

Additionally, the Court granted an extension of time to file a cert. petition in McDonald v. United States (CAAFlog case page). 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 completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on September 10, 2019. The argument will be held at the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on September 30, 2019.

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: As noted here, Briggs filed his brief in opposition to the Solicitor General’s petition for cert.. In other news, the Court requested a response from the Solicitor General to the cert. petition in Richards (noted here). 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 completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on September 10, 2019. The argument will be held at the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

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: As noted here, the Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari in United States v. Collins, No. 19-184, on August 9. In other news, the petitions in Richards and Livingstone are scheduled for conference on October 1. 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 completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on September 19, 2019.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Scilluffo, No. 39539, on Tuesday, August 13, 2019, at 10 a.m. No additional case information is available on the CCA’s website.

Disclosure: I represent the appellant as his civilian appellate defense counsel.

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 four cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on September 19, 2019.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Owens, No. 39457, on Thursday, August 8, 2019, at the University of California, Hastings College of Law, Moot Courtroom (Room 423), 198 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. No additional case information is available on the CCA’s website.

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.