CAAFlog » TWIMJ

This week at SCOTUS: A new petition for certiorari was filed in Richards v. Donovan, et al., No. 19-55. The petition is available here. The case (previously discussed here) involves an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel who was convicted of possession of child pornography and indecent acts with a child, and sentenced to confinement for 17 years, total forfeitures, and a dismissal. The Air Force CCA and CAAF affirmed the findings and sentence in United States v. Richards, No. ACM 38346, 2016 CCA LEXIS 285 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2 May 2016) (unpub. op.), aff’d, 76 M.J. 365 (C.A.A.F. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2707 (2018) (CAAFlog case page). Richards also filed numerous petitions for extraordinary relief with the military appellate courts, including petitions for habeas corpus that were denied on the basis of the Air Force Court’s holding that it lacks habeas jurisdiction in a case when direct review is over. Thereafter, CAAF dismissed a writ-appeal petition for lack of jurisdiction. Richards v. James, 78 M.J. 323 (C.A.A.F. 2019) (sum. disp.).

The case has a messy procedural history (with multiple petitions for extraordinary relief). In particular, there are three decisions (two orders and one opinion) on the Air Force CCA’s website addressing petitions for extraordinary relief. First, on October 19, 2018, the CCA denied a petition for a writ of mandamus in an unpublished decision. Richards v. James, No. 2017-04, 2018 CCA LEXIS 507 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 19, 2018) (available here). Then, on October 22, 2018, the CCA issued an order dismissing a habeas petition. Richards v. Wilson, No. 2018-07, 2018 CCA LEXIS 509 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 22, 2018) (available here). Finally, on December 7, 2018, the CCA issued an order dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus (that seems to be based on the same underlying issue as the habeas petition). Richards v. Wilson, No. 2018-10, 2018 CCA LEXIS 562 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 7, 2018) (available here). As a result, there are three separate CCA docket numbers for petitions for extraordinary relief: 2017-04 (mandamus), 2018-07 (habeas), and 2018-10 (mandamus).

There are also multiple CAAF docket numbers. The only clear CAAF decision, however, is a summary disposition dismissing a writ-appeal petition for lack of jurisdiction. Richards v. James, No. 19-0093/AF, 78 M.J. 323 (C.A.A.F. 2019) (daily journal). According to CAAF’s daily journal, that writ-appeal was of the CCA’s action on the habeas petition (CCA No. 2018-07). I see no CAAF docket entries referencing the subsequent petition for mandamus (CCA No. 2018-10). It’s possible, however, that CAAF docket number 19-0166/AF – in which a motion for enlargement of time to file a writ-appeal was denied on February 6, 2019 – involves CCA No. 2018-10, even though CAAF’s daily journal associates that docket number with CCA No. 2018-07.

Richards’ cert. petition clearly references CAAF’s action on the habeas petition (78 M.J. 323, CAAF No. 19-0093/AF, CCA No. 2018-07), and it’s not clear that Richards filed a timely writ-appeal of the mandamus petition. Nevertheless, the body of the cert. petition challenges the CCA’s decision on the mandamus petition. The question presented is:

Can the Executive Branch divest an Article I military court of appeals of jurisdiction over an extraordinary writ brought under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), once jurisdiction has vested under the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

The Air Force CCA has held – seemingly in direct conflict with United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 917 (2009) (rules of finality do not bar coram nobis jurisdiction) – that it lacks jurisdiction to grant extraordinary relief in a case that is final under Article 76. Sutton v. United States, 78 M.J. 537, 542 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2018) (available here). Additionally, both the Air Force and the Army CCAs have held that they lack jurisdiction to grant habeas in a final case. See Chapman v. United States, 75 M.J. 598 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 18, 2016) (discussed here); Gray v. Belcher, 70 M.J. 646, 647 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2012). CAAF seems to agree, as it held in United States v. Gray, 77 M.J. 5, 6 (C.A.A.F. 2017), that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain a request for coram nobis in a final case (discussed here and here). The Solicitor General later disagreed with CAAF’s finding of no jurisdiction (noted here).

In other news, the Solicitor General received a second extension of time to file a cert. petition in Collins.

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 has completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019.

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 August 8, 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 three cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF has completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019.

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 August 8, 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: The Court denied cert. in Cooper. 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 has completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019.

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 August 8, 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: The Solicitor General applied for and received an extension of time to file a cert. petition in United States v. Collins, No. 18A1257. CAAF summarily affirmed the Air Force CCA’s decision in Collins (noted here) in light of Briggs, and then it granted Collins a writ of habeas corpus (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 has completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, June 27, 2019, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Bergdahl, No. 20170582

Issues:
I. Whether the President can unlawfully influence—within the meaning of Rule for Courts-Martial 104—a court-martial the President did not personally convene. The parties should be prepared to discuss the references to apparent unlawful influence by the Secretary of the Air Force in United States v. Boyce, 76 M.J. 242 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

II. If appellant has offered at least some evidence of unlawful influence, has the government demonstrated—beyond a reasonable doubt—that both (a) the appearance of unlawful influence did not place an intolerable strain on the public’s perception of the military justice system and (b) an objective, disinterested observer, fully informed of all the facts and circumstances, would not harbor a significant doubt about the fairness of the Convening Authority’s Action? If so, how?

III. If the Convening Authority’s Action was not free from unlawful influence, what—if any—remedy is required?

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on August 8, 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: The Solicitor General received a second extension of time to seek cert. in Briggs.

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 has completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019.

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

United States v. Hollenbeck, No. 20170237

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion when denying the defense challenge for cause of major SW.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on August 8, 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: The cert. petition in Hale was denied on June 3, 2019. Additionally, on May 22, 2019, an application for extension of time to file a cert. petition was granted in Richards v. Deborah Lee James, Secretary of the Air Force, et al., No. 18A1205.

Richards is a Lieutenant Colonel who was convicted of possession of child pornography and indecent acts with a child, and sentenced to confinement for 17 years, total forfeitures, and a dismissal. The Air Force CCA and CAAF affirmed the findings and sentence in United States v. Richards, No. ACM 38346, 2016 CCA LEXIS 285 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2 May 2016) (unpub. op.), aff’d, 76 M.J. 365 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (CAAFlog case page), with CAAF holding that a search authorization for electronic media need not include a temporal limitation so long as the authorization is otherwise sufficiently particularized. The Supreme Court denied cert. in 2018. Richards also filed numerous petitions for extraordinary relief with the military appellate courts, including petitions for habeas corpus that were denied on the basis of the Air Force Court’s holding that it lacks habeas jurisdiction in a case when direct review is over. Thereafter, CAAF dismissed a writ-appeal petition for lack of jurisdiction. Richards v. James, 78 M.J. 323 (C.A.A.F. 2019) (sum. disp.).

It seems that Richards is planning to file a new cert. petition challenging the holding of no jurisdiction. We’ve previously observed, however, that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review CAAF’s denial of a writ-appeal.

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 has completed its oral argument schedule for the current term, and announced the following oral argument dates for next term:

October 2019: 16 (Project Outreach, BYU),17 (Project Outreach, Hill AFB), 22, 23
November 2019: 5, 6
December 2019: 3, 4
January 2020: 14, 15
February 2020: 11, 12
March 2020: 17, 18
April 2020: 7, 8, 9 (Project Outreach 7 – 9), 21, 22
May 2020: 5, 6, 12, 13
June 2020: 2

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on June 19, 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 Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows an oral argument scheduled for this Wednesday, June 12, 2019, at 1500, involving an alleged victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus under Article 6b, however, I’ve been informed that that alleged victim wants to withdraw the petition. Nevertheless, the following information is available on the CCA’s website:

In re K.M.O. (previously 3), NMCCA No.201900060

Case Summary: The Military Judge issued an interlocutory ruling granting the Accused’s (Real Party in Interest) Motion to Compel Production and ordered the United States to produce information about the Petitioner that the Petitioner argues is privileged. Petitioner filed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus at this Court.

Issues:
I.What is the Standard of Review that the Court should apply to a petition for a writ of mandamus to enforce Article 6b, UCMJ?

II.Is the information about the Petitioner ordered to be produced by the Military Judge privileged under Military Rule of Evidence 513

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in Cooper was distributed for conference on June 13. 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’s oral argument schedule includes one more date for argument this term – June 4, 2019 – however there are no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on June 19, 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 June 12, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Cooper. 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’s oral argument schedule includes one more date for argument this term – June 4, 2019 – however there are no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

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: A new cert. petition (available here) was filed in Cooper v. United States, No. 18-423, on May 13, 2019. In United States v. Cooper, 78 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 12, 2019) (CAAFlog case page), a nearly-unanimous court found finds that the failure to request individual military defense counsel after a military judge discusses the right to make such a request with the accused is a knowing and intentional waiver of the right. The question presented in the petition is:

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exceeded its statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 867(c) when it took action with respect to a matter of fact.

The petition asserts:

The CAAF reversed the lower court because it found Cooper knowingly and intelligently waived his right to IMC. (Pet. App. 4a, 16a.) But what a defendant knew or understood at any given moment in time is a historical fact: making a state of mind determination calls for a “recital of external events and the credibility of their narrators.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S.99, 110 (1995) (internal quotations omitted).

The CAAF took action on a matter of fact—an authority specifically withheld from CAAF and provided to the NMCCA. Compare 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) with 10 U.S.C. §867(c). In exercising its authority under 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), the NMCCA found, as fact, that Cooper did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to IMC. Without so much as a declaration that this finding was clear error, the CAAF disagreed.

Pet at 12.

Additionally, the Solicitor General requested and has received an extension of time – until June 22, 2019 – to seek certiorari of CAAF’s decision in United States v. Briggs, 78 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 22, 2019) (CAAFlog case page).

Finally, the cert. petition in Hale was distributed for conference on May 30, 2019.

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 infour cases this week:

Tuesday, May 21, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. English, No. 19-0050/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals can find the unlawful force, as alleged, factually insufficient and still affirm the finding based on a theory of criminality not presented at trial.

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

Followed by:

United States v. Navarette, No. 19-0066/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the Army Court erroneously denied appellant a post-trial R.C.M. 706 inquiry by requiring a greater showing than a non-frivolous, good faith basis articulated by United States v. Nix, 15 C.M.A. 578, 582, 36 C.M.R 76, 80 (1965).
II. Whether the Army Court erred when it held that submitting matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), was evidence of Appellant’s competence during appellate proceedings.

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

Wednesday, May 22, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Coleman, No. 19-0087/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether Specification 1 of Charge VII is multiplicious with Specification 1 of Charge I, as they are part of the same transaction.

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

Followed by:

United States v. Hyppolite, II., Nos.19-0119/AF & 19-0197/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Granted issue: Whether the military judge’s erroneous admission of evidence regarding Specifications 1, 2, and 3 as a common plan or scheme for Specifications 4 and 5 was harmless.

Certified issue: Did the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals err when it found the military judge abused his discretion by ruling that the evidence regarding Specifications 1, 2, and 3 could be considered as evidence of a common plan or scheme for Specifications 4 and 5.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Blog post: JAG cross-certifies
Granted Issue: Appellant’s brief
Granted Issue: Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief (granted issue
Certified Issue: Cross-Appellant’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Certified Issue: Cross-Appellee’s brief
Certified Issue: Cross-Appellant’s (Gov’t Div.) reply brief

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

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 Solicitor General waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in Hale. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on May 21, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

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 Court denied cert. in King on April 29. Additionally, a new cert. petition (available here) was filed in Hale v. United States, No. 18-1383, on May 2, 2019. In United States v. Hale, 78 M.J. 268 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 6, 2019) (CAAFlog case page), a majority of CAAF found that evidence of conduct that was not subject to prosecution under the UCMJ was properly used to prove intent associated with conduct that was subject to prosecution. The petition presents the following questions:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in relying on factual sufficiency of the evidence to resolve a question of plain error, where the alleged error related to a legal defect in jurisdiction.

2. Whether instructions focusing “on or about” the charged dates invited a general verdict based on conduct outside of the court-martial’s jurisdiction.

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 not hold oral arguments on May 7-8, 2019. The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on May 21, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

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

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument date at CAAF is May 7, 2019, however CAAF’s website should no scheduled oral arguments.

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

United States v. Clark, No. 20170023

Issues:
I. Whether the miltary judge erred by finding statements from two CID agents made during appellant’s videotaped interrogation were not “statements” for R.C.M. 914 purposes?

II. If the military judge erred, do the good faith loss or harmless error doctrines otherwise apply when the military judge made a previous ruling that “no evidence of bad faith on the part of any Government actor” existed in the government’s loss of one of the five discs from appellant’s videotaped interrogation?

III. If error exists and the good faith loss or harmless error doctrines do not apply: (1) what evidence and testimony should have been excluded; and (2) what is the proper test, if any, for this court to apply prejudice?

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 Wedesnday, May 1, 2019, at 1 p.m.:

United States v. Sager, No. 201400356

Case Summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contactin violation of Article120, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §920(2012). The Members sentenced Appellant to twenty-four months of confinement and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered it executed.

Issue: This case is before this Court for further review after our initial decision on direct appeal was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and after this Court granted the government’s request for reconsideration of its opinion on remand. May the Court now consider the government’s argument, raised for the first time, that the members announced a general verdict?

See United States v. Sager, 76 M.J. 158 (C.A.A.F. Mar. 21, 2017) (CAAFlog case page).

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 will hear oral argument in three cases this week:

Tuesday, April 23, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Gonzales, No. 18-0347/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether aggravated sexual contact of a child is a lesser included offense of rape of a child.

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

Followed by:

United States v. Haynes, No. 18-0359/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether an appellant is authorized to request Pierce credit for the first time at a Court of Criminal Appeals.

II. If the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that the failure to request Pierce credit below constituted waiver, was its actual review of this issue under its article 66(c), UCMJ authority still sufficient?

Case Links:
ACCA opinion (77 M.J. 753)
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

Wednesday, April 24, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Rodriguez, No.18-0350/CG (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether United States v. Orben, which established what the government must show to prove intent for indecent liberties under Article 134 (the precursor to Article 120b), applies to the intent element of Article 120b(c), sexual abuse of a child.

Case Links:
CGCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on April 30, 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 May 2, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: The cert. petition in King has been distributed for conference on April 26. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on April 23, 2019.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on April 30, 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 May 2, 2019.

This week at SCOTUS: The SG waived the right to respond to the cert. petition in King. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week. Both are Project Outreach arguments:

Tuesday, April 9, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., the University of Kansas School of Law in Lawrence, Kansas:

United States v. Frost, No. 18-0362/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge erred in admitting hearsay statements as prior consistent statements under Mil.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(i) where the defense theory posited the improper influence or motive preceded the allegedly consistent statements.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

Wednesday, April 10, 2019, at 9 a.m., at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas:

United States v. Harris, No.18-0364/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army court erroneously affirmed the military judge’s denial of 291 days of Allen credit for pretrial confinement Appellant served in a civilian confinement facility awaiting disposition of state offenses for which he was later court-martialed.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion (78 M.J. 521)
Appellant’s brief
Appelllee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Friday, April 12, 2019, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Banks, No. 20170261

Issue: Whether the court-martial lacked personal jurisdiction over appellant.

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.