CAAF today granted review on this issue: “WHETHER APPELLANT’S FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS VIOLATED WHEN HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR OFFENSES ABOUT WHICH HE HAD PROVIDED IMMUNIZED STATEMENTS.” United States v. Morrissette, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0282/AR (C.A.A.F. Apr. 14, 2011). ACCA’s unpublished decision in the case is available here. United States v. Morrissette, No. ARMY 20090166 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 22, 2010).
CAAF also granted review of a Fosler trailer, see United States v. Fosler, __ M.J. ___, No. 11-0149/MC (C.A.A.F. Feb. 9, 2011), but ordered that no briefs be filed. Here’s the granted issue: “WETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT’S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.” United States v. Lirley, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0303/MC (C.A.A.F. Apr. 14, 2011). NMCCA’s unpublished decision in the case is available here. United States v. Lirley, No. NMCCA 201000502 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2011) (per curiam).