CAAF grants review in Army case with issues of IAC, prosecutorial misconduct, and error by the military judge
Last Wednesday CAAF granted review in this Army case:
No. 19-0382/AR. U.S. v. Gerald R. Carter, Jr. CCA 20160770. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following assigned issue:
I. WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INTRODUCE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THEIR POSSESSION.
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO ORDER A MISTRIAL FOR THE CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS.
And the following personally asserted issue:
III. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF HISTORICAL CELL-SITE LOCATION INFORMATION. See CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018).
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
The CCA’s opinion is available here.
The IAC issue is based on evidence that the appellant’s brother – not the appellant – committed the charged offenses, and the fact that the appellant’s military defense counsel did not introduce that evidence at trial. The mistrial issue (while not discussed in the CCA’s opinion) involves an intentional discovery violation by the prosecution that was exposed during the trial. The judicial error issue is the Grostefon issue related to the admission of cell-site information.
Disclosure: I represented the appellant in my personal capacity during review of his case by the Army CCA.