This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court.
This week at CAAF: CAAF has completed its oral argument calendar for the September 2014 term.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in two cases this week:
Monday, June 8, 2015, at 2 p.m.: United States v. Burnside, No. 20130193
I. [WHETHER] THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE DENIED THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS APPELLANT’S SWORN STATEMENT TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND ARTICLE 31, [UCMJ,] BECAUSE SPECIAL AGENTS [PS] AND [RW] FAILED TO SCRUPULOUSLY HONOR APPELLANT’S INVOCATION OF THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
II. [WHETHER] THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE ADMITTED APPELLANT’S INVOLUNTARY ORAL AND WRITTEN CONFESSIONS TO SPECIAL AGENT [PS] AND SPECIAL AGENT [RW] BECAUSE THEY WERE THE PRODUCT OF COERCION, UNLAWFUL INFLUENCE, AND UNLAWFUL INDUCEMENT
Thursday, June 11, 2015, at 2 p.m.: United States v. Safiedeen, No. 20121124
Issue: WHETHER CAPTAIN SAFIEDEEN RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL RESULTING IN MULTIPLE PREJUDICIAL ERRORS.
This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard Trial Docket shows no scheduled oral arguments at the Coast Guard CCA.
This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA, sitting en banc, will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, June 11, 2015, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Spurling
Case summary: A special court-martial, consisting of members with enlisted representation, convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice. 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 but, as a matter of clemency, suspended the bad-conduct discharge for a period of twelve months. The issues to be argued before this Court are as follows:
I. WHEN A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS PREMISED ON COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, AN APPELLANT MUST SHOW THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT SUCH A MOTION WOULD HAVE BEEN MERITORIOUS. UNITED STATES V. JAMESON, 65 M.J. 160, 163-64 (C.A.A.F. 2007). HOW SHOULD THIS COURT DEFINE “REASONABLE PROBABILITY?”
II. DID THE APPELLANT SATISFY THAT STANDARD IN THIS CASE?
This is the NMCCA’s second review of this case. The court previously issued an en banc decision denying appellant relief (discussed here), but CAAF summarily reversed and remanded (discussed here).