I just noticed an update to CAAF’s daily journal (available here), showing that the court granted review of two issues in the Air Force case of United States v. McFadden, No. 37438 (A.F.Ct.Crim.App. Sep. 26, 2013) (discussed here) (link to unpub. op.):
I. WHETHER THE AFCCA ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT ABUSE HIS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO EXCUSE FOR CAUSE A COURT MEMBER WHO ACCUSED APPELLANT OF LYING BY OMISSION BY EXERCISING HER ARTICLE 31(b), UCMJ, RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR A MISTRIAL AFTER A COURT MEMBER ACCUSED APPELLANT OF LYING BY OMISSION BY EXERCISING HER ARTICLE 31(b), UCMJ, RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
McFadden is one of the uncertified cases I discuss in my post about apparent bias in Air Force TJAG certifications. I’ve updated the post to reflect the grant.
In other docket news, Marine Sergeant Hutchins (full coverage here) has asked CAAF for a writ of mandamus.
Misc. No. 14-8016/NA. Lawrence G. HUTCHINS III, Petitioner v. Michael B. RICHARDSON, Colonel, United States Marine Corps, In his official capacity as Military Judge, and United States, Respondents. Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus and prohibtion was filed under Rule 27(a) on this date.
Notably, this isn’t docketed as a writ-appeal of a decision of the NMCCA, but is a direct appeal to CAAF. As discussed in this post, Sergeant Hutchins has objected to anyone who is subordinate to the Secretary of the Navy serving as military judge in his case.