October 2017 Term of Court

Note: These stats may include cases set for argument in the near future.


Cases heard at oral argument this term (includes 1 motion): 6
Argued cases decided by authored decision: 0
Argued cases decided per curiam or by summary disposition: 0
Argued cases pending decision: 0
Other cases decided by authored decision: 0

Cases Heard at Oral Argument Pending Decision (chronological by date of argument):

United States v. Jacobsen, No. 17-0408/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, October 10, 2017): A single issue in this certified case challenges the Army CCA’s rejection of an interlocutory prosecution appeal under Article 62, UCMJ.

United States v. Guardado, No. 17-0183/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, October 10, 2017): CAAF is reviewing the Army CCA’s published decision that identified five factors to consider when determining if an appellant was prejudiced by the improper use of charged offenses for propensity purposes.

United States v. Hennis, No. 17-0263/AR (motion to compel funding) (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, October 10, 2017): In this capital case CAAF is considering a defense “motion to compel funding for learned counsel, a mitigation specialist, and a fact investigator; for appointment of appellate team members; and for a stay of proceedings.”

United States v. Mangahas, No. 17-0434/AF (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Wednesday, October 11, 2017): CAAF granted review in this interlocutory case after the Air Force CCA reversed the military judge’s ruling that dismissed the charge with prejudice after finding a violation of the accused’s Fifth Amendment (due process) right to a speedy trial based on an 18-year delay and the death of a witness.

United States v. Pugh, No. 17-0306/AF (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Wednesday, October 11, 2017): An interlocutory appeal of a ruling dismissing a charge after the members returned findings of guilty and a sentence, CAAF will review a military judge’s ruling that AFI 90-507 – which prohibits consumption of any product containing hemp seed or hemp seed oil – serves no valid military purpose.

United States v. Short, No. 17-0187/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, October 24, 2017): A single issue questions the propriety of the trial counsel’s closing argument in a case where the defense counsel did not object to the argument, but did make multiple sustained objections during the prosecution’s case.

United States v. Gonzalez-Gomez, No. 17-0200/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, October 24, 2017): A single issue questions the 2 years, 1 month, and 20 days it took a three-judge panel of the Army CCA to issue a published decision in the case.


Cases with Authored Decisions (chronological by date of decision):

None yet.

Comments are closed.