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 arguments at CAAF are on March 21, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still inaccessible from the public internet (discussed here). Nevertheless, the CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, March 14, 2018, at 9:45 a.m.:

United States v. Sinclair, No. 20160267

Issues:
I. [WHETHER] TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE WHEN THEY FAILED TO FULLY ATTACK THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY, AND WHEN THEY FAILED TO OBJECT TO PLAINLY INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT.

[II]. WAS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL’S PRESENTENCING CASE INEFFECTIVE?

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on April 6, 2018 (at Penn State Law).

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 Thursday, March 15, 2018, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Berger, NMCCA No. 201500024

Case summary:
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, pursuant to his plea, of violating a lawful general order by wrongfully possessing a synthetic cannabinoid compound. At the same court-martial, a panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of rape, one specification of sexual assault, one specification of aggravated sexual contact, two specifications of abusive sexual contact, and one specification of assault consummated by a battery. The members sentenced the appellant to 78 months’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered the sentence executed.

Although this court affirmed the findings and sentence, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces set aside our decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016).

Issue:
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE RENDERS THE MILITARY JUDGE’S INSTRUCTION ON THE PROPER USE OF PROPENSITY EVIDENCE, UNDER MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 413, HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES V. HILLS, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016) AND ITS PROGENY, UNITED STATES V. GUARDADO, 77 M.J. 90 (C.A.A.F. 2017) AND UNITED STATES V. LUNA, 76 M.J. 477 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

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 arguments at CAAF are on March 21, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still inaccessible from the public internet (discussed here). Nevertheless, the CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Monday, March 5, 2018, at 9:45 a.m.:

United States v. Tucker, No. 20150634

Issue: Whether inferring the general-intent mens rea of negligence sufficiently separates wrongful from otherwise innocent conduct for offenses charged under Clause 1 or Clause 2 of Article 134, UCMJ.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on April 6, 2018 (at Penn State Law).

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 March 15, 2018.

This week at SCOTUS: The court denied cert. in Roukis on February 20. The petitions in Cash and Richards have been held since conference on February 16 (both cases are Dalmazzi trailers). I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking seven cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in three cases this week:

Tuesday, February 27, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.

United States v. Barker, No. 17-0551/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it held proper foundation had been laid to admit evidence in aggravation.

II. Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals improperly conducted a review of the prejudice resulting from the military judge’s erroneous admission of evidence in aggravation.

Case Links:
• AFCCA decision (76 M.J. 748)
• Blog post: The Air Force CCA addresses the limits of victim-impact statements
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Hardy, No. 17-0553/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred by holding that Appellant waived, rather than forfeited, his claim of unreasonable multiplication of charges.

Case Links:
• AFCCA decision (76 M.J. 732)
• Blog post: AFCCA finds guilty plea waives UMC
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, February 28, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.

United States v. Andrews, No.17-0480/NA (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: The lower court found severe prosecutorial misconduct. Then it affirmed the findings and sentence, giving its imprimatur to the prosecutorial misconduct in Appellant’s case. Did the lower court err?

Case Links:
• NMCCA decision
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (N.M. App. Gov’t 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). The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on March 5, 2018.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on April 6, 2018 (at Penn State Law).

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 March 15, 2018.

This week at SCOTUS: A new cert. petition with filed in Gray v. United States, No. 17-7769 (CAAFlog case page). Ronald Gray is one of only four prisoners on military death row (our #2 Military Justice Story of 2016). Back on November 8, in a per curiam decision I analyzed here, CAAF dismissed a writ-appeal petition with prejudice. The decision was so remarkable that the next day I wrote a second, deeper analysis (available here). Gray’s cert. petition questions CAAF’s dismissal. The petition is available here. The questions presented are:

1. Which court system, Article I military or Article III civil, appropriately exercises jurisdiction in final military cases to conduct initial review of constitutional claims that arise after or in conjunction with direct appeal?

2. Does 28 U.S.C. § 1259(1) confer certiorari jurisdiction over a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces dismissing a coram nobis petition in a military death penalty case?

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

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on February 27, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still inaccessible from the public internet (discussed here).

Update: A reader informs me that the Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, February 22, 2018, at 10 a.m. The CCA will hear argument on both an appeal and a petition for a new trial:

United States v. Kohlbek, No. 20160427

Issue:
I. Whether the military judge erred by prohibiting the appellant from presenting evidence relevant to the appellant’s post-polygraph statement.

Petition for new trial:
Whether this court should grant appellant’s petition for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
I. Whether the military judge abused his discretion by failing to suppress the appellant’s post-polygraph statement.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on April 6, 2018 (at Penn State Law).

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 Wednesday, February 21, 2018, at the George Washington University Law School, 2000 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, at 12:05 p.m.:

United States v. Hoffmann, NMCCA No. 201400067

Case Summary: In 2013, a general court-martial comprised of officer and enlisted members convicted the appellant of multiple charges involving a child, and for possessing child pornography. We affirmed the conviction the following year. In 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) set aside the findings and sentence, dismissing the child pornography charges with prejudice and authorized a rehearing on the remaining charges. [(CAAFlog case page)]

At his rehearing, a general court-martial comprised of officer members convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two charges involving a child. The appellant was sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-1, 10 years’ confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered it executed.

Issues:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE ADMITTED PROPENSITY EVIDENCE UNDER MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 414 AND FAILED TO CONDUCT A PROPER MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 403 BALANCING TEST.

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE DID NOT EXTEND HIS RULING THAT COLONEL WOODARD WAS DISQUALIFIED FROM PROVIDING INPUT ON THE ARTICLE 34, UCMJ, LETTER AS STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE TO INCLUDE OTHER AREAS OF PRETRIAL ADVICE.

III. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF AS HE HAD BEEN THE REPORTING SENIOR TO THE MILITARY JUSTICE OFFICER DURING THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION AND WAS INFORMED BY NCIS ON MATTERS RELATED TO THE APPELLANT’S CASE.

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 arguments at CAAF are on February 27, 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 next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on April 6, 2018 (at Penn State Law).

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 February 21, 2018.

This week at SCOTUS: The petition in Cash was distributed for conference on February 16, and a reply brief was filed in Richards on Jan. 31. 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 February 27, 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 next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 21, 2018.

This week at SCOTUS: The petition in Roukis was distributed for conference on February 16. 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 February 27, 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 next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 21, 2018.

This week at SCOTUS: The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Dalmazzi on January 16 (audio) (transcript). Also on the 16th, the Solicitor General filed a response to the cert. petition in Richards. On the 19th, the SG waived the right to respond to the petition in Roukis.

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 is scheduled to hear oral argument in four cases this week (all Air Force cases):

Tuesday, January 23, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Condon, No.17-0392/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Granted Issue: Upon request by the defense counsel and utilizing a defense proposed instruction, should the military judge have provided the members with an explanation of the term “incapable”?

Specified Issue: Whether the military judge erred in admitting Appellant’s invocation of his right to counsel in his AFOSI interview at trial over defense objection, and, if so, whether that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

Followed by:

United States v. Wheeler, No.17-0456/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the lower court erroneously concluded Charge II was not preempted by Article 120b, UCMJ, 10 U.S. C. § 920.

Case Links:
AFCCA decision (76 M.J. 564)
Blog post: CAAF grants review
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Blanks, No.17-0404/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: In light of this Court’s decision in United States v. Haverty, 76 M.J. 199 (C.A.A.F. 2017) [CAAFlog case page], did the military judge err when he instructed the members Appellant could be convicted of negligent dereliction of duty?

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

Followed by:

United States v. Robinson, No.17-0504/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge abused his discretion by failing to suppress evidence obtained from Appellant’s cell phone.

II. Whether the Air Force Court erred in holding Appellant waived objections regarding investigators’ exceeding the scope of Appellant’s consent.

Case Links:
AFCCA decision (76 M.J. 663)
Blog post: CCA opinion analysis
Blog post: CAAF grants review in related case
Blog post: CAAF grants review in this case
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Amicus brief (supporting Robinson): Army Defense App. Div. 
Amicus brief (supporting Robinson): EFF, ACLU, ACLU of DC
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 next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 21, 2018.

This week at SCOTUS: The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Dalmazzi tomorrow morning.

The Court denied the cert. petitions in Bartee and Tso (noted here). The Solicitor General filed a memorandum response to the cert. petition in Cash (available here), asking that it be held as a Dalmazzi trailer.

On January 8 the Court docketed a new cert. petition in Roukis v. Department of the Army, No 17-7321. A copy of the petition is available here.

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’s website is inaccessible, however the next scheduled oral argument is on January 23, 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 is inaccessible (it’s on the same server as CAAF’s website).

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 February 21, 2018.

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking seven cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in three cases this week:

Tuesday, January 9, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Williams, No. 17-0285/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously found that the propensity instruction given in this case falls within an exception to the holding in United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016).

Case Links:
• ACCA decision (first decision / pre-Hills) (75 M.J. 621)
• Blog post: ACCA overturns pesky precedent
• Blog post: CAAF reverses
• ACCA opinion
• Blog post: CAAF grants
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Army Gov’t App. Div.) answer
• Appellant’s reply brief
• Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, January 10, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Carpenter, No. 0476/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred in limiting the cross-examination of the complaining witness under Military Rule of Evidence 412 on an issue showing that Appellant’s subjective mistake of fact as to the complaining witness’s age was objectively reasonable.

Case Links:
• AFCCA decision
• Blog post: CAAF grant
• Appellant’s brief (sealed)
• Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) answer (sealed)
• Blog post: Argument preview

Followed by:

United States v. Mooney, No. 17-0405/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the convening authority’s action is void ab initio where it purports to order Appellant’s adjudged court-martial sentence to run consecutive to his previously adjudged federal sentence instead of concurrently as required by Article 57, UCMJ.

Case Links:
• AFCCA decision
• Blog post: CAAF grant
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) answer
• 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: Reply briefs were filed in Bartee and Tso on December 20, 2017, and both cases are pending conference this week. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking seven cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 9, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is down, but I believe that next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 11, 2018. The argument will be held at New England School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

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 petitions in Bartee and Tso were distributed for conference on January 5, 2018. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking seven cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 9, 2018.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 11, 2018. The argument will be held at New England School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

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: A petition for certiorari was filed in Cash, et al. v. United States, No. 17-840, on December 12, 2017. The petition (available here) includes three Dalmazzi trailers. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking seven cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 9, 2018

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 11, 2018. The argument will be held at New England School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

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 SG filed the requested response to the cert. petition in Bartee; it is available here. The SG also filed a response to the petition in Tso; it is available here. Finally, the SG received an extension of time to file a response to the petition in Richards.

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

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on January 9, 2018

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 11, 2018. The argument will be held at New England School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

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: SCOTUS denied cert. in Herrmann on November 27, 2017. 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 will hear oral argument in four cases this week:

Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Katso, No.17-0326/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it held that United States v. Miller, 47 M.J. 352 (C.A.A.F. 1997) required the government to hold a continued confinement hearing within 7 days of the Judge Advocate General’s decision on certification.
II. Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it found that government’s failure to hold a continued confinement hearing within 7 days of the Judge Advocate General’s decision on certification automatically resulted in a day-for-day sentencing credit.
III. Whether Appellee was prejudiced when the government failed to hold a continued confinement hearing within 7 days of certification.

Case Links:
Prior CAAFlog case page
• AFCCA opinion (76 M.J. 704)
Blog post: Katso returns to CAAF
• Appellant’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) brief
• Appellee’s (Katso) answer
• Appellant’s reply brief

Followed by:

United States v. Chisum, No.17-0199/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge’s failure to conduct an in camera review of the mental health records of AB AK and AB CR deprived Appellant of his right to confront the sole witnesses against him in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion (75 M.J. 943)
Blog post: AFCCA obtains & reviews 2 set of mental health records
• Appellant’s brief (sealed)
• Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) answer (redacted)
• Appellant’s reply brief (sealed)
Amicus brief (Protect Our Defenders) in support of A.F. Gov’t App. Div.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Harpole, No.17-0171/CG (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the military judge abused her discretion when she allowed a victim advocate to testify as to Appellant’s privileged communications, in violation of M.R.E. 514.
II. Whether the trial defense counsel were ineffective by failing to suppress Appellant’s unwarned admissions. These admissions were made to YNI NIPP when she knew he was a suspect and under investigation. She intended to report these admissions to the command and questioned him without advising him of his Art. 31 UCMJ, rights.
III. Upon request by the defense counsel and using a defense-drafted instruction, should the military judge have provided the members with an explanation of the term “incapable”?

Case Links:
CGCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grant
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (C.G. Gov’t App. Div.) answer

Followed by:

United States v.  Honea III, No.17-0347/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Immediately before the defense rested its case, the military judge invited the parties’ attention to R.C.M. 910, and directed the defense to provide the military judge with a draft specification of assault consummated by a battery. Did the lower court err when it held that the defense’s compliance with the military judge’s directive constituted a de facto defense request to modify the specification pursuant to R.C.M. 603 where there is no evidence that either the defense or the convening authority were aware the charge was being amended pursuant to R.C.M. 603?
II. The military judge dismissed Specification 2 of Charge II, abusive sexual contact by causing bodily harm, for failure to state an offense, but she allowed the government to proceed to trial on the purported lesser included offense of assault consummated by a battery. Did the military judge err?

Case Links:
• AFCCA opinion
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (A.F. Gov’t App. Div.) answer
• Appellant’s reply brief

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on January 25, 2018. The argument will be held at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, 25 East Pearson Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.

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.