Note: This page may include cases set for argument in the near future.
|Cases heard at oral argument this term:||9|
|Argued cases decided by authored decision:||1|
|Argued cases decided per curiam or by summary disposition:||0|
|Argued cases pending decision:||8|
|Other cases noted below:||0|
Cases Heard at Oral Argument Pending Decision (chronological by date of argument):
United States v. Criswell, No. 18-0091/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Thursday, September 13, 2018): A single granted issue challenges the military judge’s ruling that allowed the alleged victim to make an in-court identification of the appellant as her assailant.
United States v. Hamilton, No. 18-0135/AF (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, October 23, 2018): CAAF is reviewing review whether an unsworn statement by a crime victim (allowed by R.C.M. 1001A) is evidence that must be evaluated under the rules of evidence.
United States v. Hale, No. 18-0162/AF (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, October 23, 2018): Three issues – two granted and one specified by CAAF – question the existence of personal jurisdiction for offenses committed by a drilling reservist.
United States v. Tucker, No. 18-0254/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Wednesday, October 24, 2018): In its second review of substantially the same issue in this case, CAAF is considering whether mere negligence on the part of an accused is sufficient for a conviction of violation of Article 134 (the general article that penalizes disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline, conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and other crimes and offenses not capital).
United States v. King, No. 18-0288/AF (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, November 6, 2018): A single granted issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that King wrongfully viewed child pornography, but the briefs suggest that the case is more about corroboration of King’s admissions to law enforcement (an issue that might be waived by the failure to object at trial).
United States v. Kohlbek, No. 18-0267/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, November 6, 2018): CAAF is reviewing whether the general prohibition in Mil. R. Evid. 707 against evidence of polygraph examinations applies to a defense request to introduce into evidence the fact that a confession was preceded by a polygraph.
United States v. Bodoh, No. 18-0201/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Wednesday, November 7, 2018): CAAF will determine whether it was plain error for the military judge to allow the prosecution to repeatedly reference the Army’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) program during closing arguments to the members.
United States v. Nicola, No. 18-0247/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Wednesday, November 7, 2018): The court is reviewing the legal sufficiency of a conviction of indecent viewing in violation of Article 120c.
Authored Decisions (chronological by date of decision):
United States v. Eugene, 78 M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Oct. 29, 2018) (CAAFlog case page): Holding that the question of whether an accused revoked consent to a search is a question of fact, not a question of law, a unanimous CAAF finds no error in the military judge’s finding that the appellant did not revoke the consent his wife gave to law enforcement to search his phone.