This week at SCOTUS: The Supreme Court postponed its March oral arguments, including the argument in Briggs (that was scheduled for March 23). The arguments have not yet been rescheduled.
I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking five cases:
- United States v. Briggs, No. 19-108 (consolidated) (cert granted on Nov. 15; pend. oral arg.)
- Richards v. Donovan, et al., No. 19-55 (pet. filed Jun. 8; resp. req. Aug. 14, due. Mar. 23)
- McDonald v. United States, No. 19-557 (pet filed Oct. 28; resp. req., filed Feb. 21; pend. conf. on Mar. 27)
- Voorhees v. United States, No. 19-795 (pet. filed. Dec. 20; resp. filed Feb. 20; pend. conf. on Mar. 27)
- Kelly v. United States, No. 19-1011 (pet. filed Feb. 12; resp. waived Feb. 20; pend. conf. on Mar. 20)
This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on April 20, 2020.
This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on May 1, 2020.
This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on April 24, 2020.
This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 10 a.m. However, according to this order, the hearing is closed to the public at the request of the appellant because “counsel intends to discuss privileged contents of [the appellant’s] Rule for Courts-Martial 706 mental health examination.”
United States v. Hedgecock, No. 201800333
I. Did the military judge abuse his discretion when he denied defense counsel’s motion to compel the convening authority to appoint Dr. Stephen Zieman, Ph.D., or an adequate substitute neuropsychologist, as an expert consultant to the Defense?
II. Military Rule of Evidence 409 prohibits the admission of evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical bills to prove liability for an injury. Was it plain error when the military judge allowed the Government to admit evidence that Appellant offered to pay J.A.W.’s medical expenses to prove Appellant’s “consciousness of guilt”?