CAAFlog » TWIMJ

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Dalmazzi is scheduled for conference on March 3. 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 February 28, 2017.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in two cases this week, both on Wednesday, February 22, 2017:

At 10 a.m.: United States v. Robinson, No. 20150120

Issue: WHETHER SPECIALIST ROBINSON WAS DENIED HIS 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD HAVE DISCREDITED THE ALLEGED VICTIM’S CLAIMED LEVEL OF INTOXICATION AND ALSO FAILED TO OFFER EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM INVITED SPECIALIST ROBINSON INTO HER ROOM PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ACTIVITY TAKING PLACE.

At 1 p.m.: United States v. Franks, No. 20140952

Issues:
I. THE MILITARY JUDGE REVERSIBLY ERRED BY RULING THAT SECOND LIEUTENANT FRANKS’ FEAR OF COMMITTING SUICIDE COULD NOT SUPPORT THE DEFENSE OF DURESS.

II. THE EVIDENCE WAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION FOR DESERTION, BECAUSE THE ALLEGED IMPORTANT SERVICE WAS SPECULATIVE AND NON-IMMINENT.

III. THE EVIDENCE WAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION FOR CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND GENTLEMEN, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A GUILTY MIND, AND THE MILITARY JUDGE REVERSIBLY ERRED BY REFUSING TO INSTRUCT ON MENS REA.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on March 2, 2017.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

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

This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Dalmazzi. 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 date at CAAF is February 28, 2017 (though no arguments are presently scheduled).

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one cases this week, on Monday, February 13, 2017, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Battles, No. 20140399

Issue: WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED [BY] FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE PANEL ON THE MENS REA NECESSARY TO MAKE APPELLANT’S CONDUCT CRIMINAL [TO THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE I].

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on March 2, 2017.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule 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 February 15, 2017, at noon. The argument will be heard at the George Washington University Law School:

United States v. Dinger, No. 201600108

Case summary: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant pursuant to his pleas of two specifications of committing indecent acts, one specification of attempting to produce child pornography, two specifications of wrongfully making an indecent visual recording, and one specification of possessing child pornography, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920 (2006), and Articles 80, 120c, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 920c, and 934 (2012). The military judge sentenced the appellant to nine years’ confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, but suspended confinement over 96 months pursuant to a pre-trial agreement.

Issues:
I. WHETHER COURTS-MARTIAL HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER MILITARY RETIREES IN LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING IN BARKER V. KANSAS, 503 U.S. 594, 605 (1992), THAT FOR TAX PURPOSES, MILITARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS ARE NOT CURRENT COMPENSATION FOR REDUCED SERVICES?

II. WHETHER CONGRESS’ STATEMENT IN 10 U.S.C. § 6332 THAT THE TRANSFER OF A MEMBER OF THE NAVAL SERVICE TO A RETIRED STATUS “IS CONCLUSIVE FOR ALL PURPOSES” PRECLUDES THE ISSUANCE OF A PUNITIVE DISCHARGE TO A RETIREE?

This week at SCOTUS: As noted here, a cert. petition was filed in Dalmazzi last week. Additionally, SCOTUSblog now has a case page (here) for Sterling with links to amicus briefs . I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week, on Tuesday February 7, 2017, beginning at 9:30 a.m. (the court did not schedule any arguments for the Feb. 8 session):

United States v. Ortiz, No. 16-0671 (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether United States Court of Military Commission Review Judge, Martin T. Mitchell, is statutorily authorized to sit as one of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals judges on the panel that decided Appellant’s case.

Amended Issue: II. Whether Judge Martin T. Mitchell’s Service on both the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the United States Court of Military Commission Review violates the Appointments Clause given his status as a principal officer on the United States Court of Military Commission Review.

Specified Issue: III. Whether Judge Martin T. Mitchell was in fact a principal officer following his appointment by the President to the United States Court of Military Commission Review in light of the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 949b(4)(c) and (d), authorizing reassignment or withdrawal of appellate military judges so appointed by the Secretary of Defense or his designee.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF picks a replacement for Dalmazzi
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (A.F. App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Amicus Curiae Brief: Army Appellate Government Division
• Amicus Curiae Brief: Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Government Division
• Amicus Curiae Brief: Military Commissions Defense Organization (& Appendix)
Blog post: Argument preview

United States v. Oliver, No. 16-0484/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether wrongful sexual contact was a lesser-included offense of abusive sexual contact.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (A.F. App. Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one cases this week, on Wednesday, February 8, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. The argument will be heard at the University of Tennessee School of Law:

United States v. Mayo, No. 20140901

Issue: [Whether] the military judge erred in denying the implied bias challenge of a panel member whose wife was a victim of domestic violence and whose uncle-in-law was murdered by a perpetrator who escaped punishment.

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.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 15, 2017.

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: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on February 10, 2017.

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

Thursday, February 2, 2017, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Bishop, No. 20150441

WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ABOUT HOW THE LOSS OF RETIREMENT AND MEDICAL BENEFITS WOULD AFFECT APPELLANT’S FAMILY, FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ABOUT APPELLANT’S GOOD DUTY PERFORMANCE, FAILED TO ASSIST APPELLANT IN PREPARING HIS UNSWORN STATEMENT, AND WHERE COUNSEL SUGGESTED APPELLANT LIED UNDER OATH DURING HIS PRESENTENCING ARGUMENT.

Friday, February 3, 3017, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Robinson, No. 20150088

I. THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE FAILED TO FIND SPECIFICATIONS 1, 3, 8, 12, 13, AND 15 OF CHARGE II MULTIPLICIOUS WITH SPECIFICATIONS 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, AND 9 OF CHARGE III, RESPECTIVELY, AS THEY ARE PART OF THE SAME TRANSACTIONS.

II. THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE FAILED TO FIND THAT SPECIFICATION 5 OF CHARGE IV CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE MULTIPLICATION OF CHARGES WITH SPECIFICATIONS 12 AND 13 OF CHARGE II, AND SPECIFICATIONS 5, 7, AND 8 OF CHARGE III.

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.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 15, 2017.

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: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on February 10, 2017.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, January 25, 2017, at 1 p.m.:

United States v. Stewart, No. 20160128

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion by denying the defense motion to compel appointment of an expert assistant in eyewitness identification.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Mangahas on Tuesday, January 24, 2017, at 10 a.m. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 15, 2017.

On Friday the Supreme Court requested a response to the cert. petition in Sterling v. United States, No. 16-814 (CAAFlog case page).

This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General received an additional extension of time to file a response to the cert. petition in Howell. Additionally, the cert. petition in Sterling was distributed for conference on Feb. 17, 2017. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on February 10, 2017.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 25, 2017.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on January 24, 2017.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 15, 2017.

This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Sterling. 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 hear oral argument in four cases this week:

Tuesday, January 10, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Davis, No. 16-0306/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in refusing to apply de novo review for failure to instruct on an affirmative defense raised by the evidence, and instead found forfeiture and applied a plain error analysis, contrary to this court’s precedents in United States v. Taylor, 26 M.J. 127 (C.M.A. 1988); United States v. Davis, 53 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2000); and United States v. Stanley, 71 M.J. 60 (C.A.A.F. 2012).

Case Links:
ACCA opinion (75 M.J. 537)
Blog post: The ACCA tackles the standard of review for instructions not given
• Appellant’s brief 
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Lopez, No. 16-0487/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge erred by admitting the testimony of appellant’s wife, Mrs. CL, who testified that appellant’s apology to his stepson meant that appellant was “loosely admitting guilt” to criminal conduct, and by also admitting the testimony of Ms. NM, who testified that appellant “had probably raped” his wife because Mrs. CL had recently researched “spousal rape” on the internet.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion (summary disposition)
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, January 11, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Price, No. 16-0611/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion by forcing appellant to admit to misconduct greater than was necessary for a provident plea.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Shea, No. 16-0530/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred on remand when, over appellant’s timely objection, this case was assigned to a panel that did not include all three of the judges from the original decision.
II. Whether a reasonable observer would question the impartiality or independence of the Court of Criminal Appeals after witnessing the removal of Judge Hecker from this case on remand following the Government’s allegations that her impartiality has been impaired by the decision of the Judge Advocate General, who is himself part of the Government, to assign her to perform non-judicial additional duties within the government.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
AFCCA opinion on remand
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) 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 January 25, 2017.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Cox on Thursday, January 12, at 4 p.m. at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, 55 West 12th Ave, Columbus OH 43210. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 15, 2017.

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: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on January 10, 2017.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on February 22, 2017.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Pugh on Wednesday, January 4, 2017, at 10 a.m. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 15, 2017.

This week at SCOTUS: A cert. petition was filed in Sterling last week (noted 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: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on January 10, 2017.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on February 22, 2017.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on January 4, 2017.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 15, 2017.

This week at SCOTUS: The Court extended the deadline for the SG to file the requested response in Howell. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on January 10, 2017.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on February 22, 2017.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on January 4, 2017.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 15, 2017.

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: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on January 10, 2017.

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

Tuesday, December 13, 2016, at 10 a.m.: United States v. Moore, No. 20140875

Issue: WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN HE INSTRUCTED THE PANEL THAT IT COULD CONSIDER THE CHARGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT FOR MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 413 PURPOSES WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE DEFENSE OR FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ITS ADMISSION.

Thursday, December 15, 2016, at 10 a.m.: United States v. Hadley, No. 20150766

Issue: WHETHER THERE IS A FATAL VARIANCE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ALLEGED THAT APPELLANT POSSESSED IMAGES OF ACTUAL MINORS ENGAGING IN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT BUT THE MILITARY JUDGE FOUND THE APPELLANT GUILTY, BY EXCEPTIONS AND SUBSTITUTIONS, OF POSSESSING OBSCENE DIGITAL IMAGES OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE MINORS ENGAGING IN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on January 4, 2017.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 15, 2017.

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 will hear oral argument in four cases this week:

Tuesday, December 6, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

United States v. Rosario, No. 16-0424/MC (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the lower court erred in conducting its Article 66(C), UCMJ, review by finding as fact allegations that supported charges of which Sgt Rosario was acquitted to affirm the findings and sentence.

Case Links:
NMCCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Commisso, 16-0555/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying the defense’s post-trial motion for a mistrial, thereby violating appellant’s right to have his case decided by a panel of fair and impartial members, because three panel members failed to disclose that they had prior knowledge of the case.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF to review member disclosures
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, December 7, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Boyce, No. 16-0546/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: The Chief of Staff of the Air Force advised the convening authority that, unless he retired, the Secretary of the Air Force would fire him. Was the convening authority’s subsequent referral of charges unlawfully influenced by the threat to his position and career?

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF specifies an issue involving Air Force Lieutenant General Franklin
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Dalmazzi, No. 16-0651/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue [specified by CAAF on November 21 (discussed here)] : Whether the issues granted for review are moot where the record reflects that: Martin T. Mitchell took an oath purporting to install him as a judge of the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) on May 2, 2016; the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) issued an opinion in the underlying case with Judge Mitchell participating in his capacity as an AFCCA judge on May 12, 2016; and the President did not appoint Mitchell to the CMCR until May 25, 2016.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF to review whether an appellate military judge can sit on both a CCA and the CMCR
Blog post: CAAF grants oral argument to the Military Commissions Defense Organization as amicus in support of neither party in Dalmazzi
Blog post: Potential mootness in Dalmazzi
Appellant’s brief on specified issue
Appellee’s (Government) brief on specified issue

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on December 13, 2016.

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

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Bailey on Thursday, December 8, 2016, at 10 a.m.. The argument will occur in the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals Courtroom at 254 Charles Morse St. SE, Washington Navy Yard, Bldg. 58, Washington, DC, 20374. The granted issues are:

I. A CRIMINAL STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE IF A PERSON CANNOT REASONABLY DISCERN WHETHER THE CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT IS CRIMINAL. HERE, SN BAILEY WAS CONVICTED OF ENGAGING IN A SEXUAL ACT WITH LH WHEN SHE WAS “INCAPABLE OF CONSENTING DUE TO IMPAIRMENT” IN VIOLATION OF ART. 120(B)(3) OF THE UCMJ. THE LAW DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT LEVEL OF IMPAIRMENT RENDERS A PERSON INCAPABLE OF CONSENTING. IS THE STATUTE VOID FOR VAGUENESS?

II. THE MILITARY JUDGE MUST GIVE ALL NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE PROPERLY REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES. HERE, THE MILITARY JUDGE REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS ON A LEGALLY CORRECT DEFINITION OF “INCAPABLE” AS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENSE TO AVOID UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS. THIS WAS ERROR.

The Court directs the parties to address the following:

1. The effect on the issues, if any, of United States v. Pease, 75 M.J. 180 (C.A.A.F. 2016).

2. Whether the military judge, having denied the defense’s proposed instruction, should have given some other instruction on the subject.

3. Whether Pease affects the analysis of the sufficiency of evidence

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

This week at SCOTUS: Last week the Court requested a response to the cert. petition in Howell. The response is due on December 23, 2016. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on December 6, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on December 13, 2016.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Walters on Wednesday, November 30, 2016, at 1 p.m. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule 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 Howell was distributed for conference on December 2. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on December 6, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Carista, No. 20150243, on Tuesday, November 22, 2016, at 10 a.m., on the following issue:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN HIS APPLICATION OF MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 412 BY ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SEXUAL CONDUCT OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Honea on Tuesday, November 21, 2016, at 10 a.m. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

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