Military justice blogs are to blogs
as military music is to music.
No comments yetAudio of today’s oral arguments at CAAF is available on CAAF’s website at the following links:
United States v. Coleman, No. 19-0087/AR (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio (wma) (mp3)
United States v. Hyppolite, II., Nos.19-0119/AF & 19-0197/AF (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio (wma) (mp3)
The audio is also available on our oral argument audio podcast.
This week at SCOTUS: A new cert. petition (available here) was filed in Cooper v. United States, No. 18-423, on May 13, 2019. In United States v. Cooper, 78 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 12, 2019) (CAAFlog case page), a nearly-unanimous court found finds that the failure to request individual military defense counsel after a military judge discusses the right to make such a request with the accused is a knowing and intentional waiver of the right. The question presented in the petition is:
Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exceeded its statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 867(c) when it took action with respect to a matter of fact.
The petition asserts:
The CAAF reversed the lower court because it found Cooper knowingly and intelligently waived his right to IMC. (Pet. App. 4a, 16a.) But what a defendant knew or understood at any given moment in time is a historical fact: making a state of mind determination calls for a “recital of external events and the credibility of their narrators.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S.99, 110 (1995) (internal quotations omitted).
The CAAF took action on a matter of fact—an authority specifically withheld from CAAF and provided to the NMCCA. Compare 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) with 10 U.S.C. §867(c). In exercising its authority under 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), the NMCCA found, as fact, that Cooper did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to IMC. Without so much as a declaration that this finding was clear error, the CAAF disagreed.
Pet at 12.
Additionally, the Solicitor General requested and has received an extension of time – until June 22, 2019 – to seek certiorari of CAAF’s decision in United States v. Briggs, 78 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 22, 2019) (CAAFlog case page).
Finally, the cert. petition in Hale was distributed for conference on May 30, 2019.
I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument infour cases this week:
Tuesday, May 21, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.:
United States v. English, No. 19-0050/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals can find the unlawful force, as alleged, factually insufficient and still affirm the finding based on a theory of criminality not presented at trial.
Case Links:
• ACCA opinion
• Blog post: CAAF grants review
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief
Followed by:
United States v. Navarette, No. 19-0066/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issues:
I. Whether the Army Court erroneously denied appellant a post-trial R.C.M. 706 inquiry by requiring a greater showing than a non-frivolous, good faith basis articulated by United States v. Nix, 15 C.M.A. 578, 582, 36 C.M.R 76, 80 (1965).
II. Whether the Army Court erred when it held that submitting matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), was evidence of Appellant’s competence during appellate proceedings.
Case Links:
• ACCA opinion
• Blog post: CAAF grants review
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief
Wednesday, May 22, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.:
United States v. Coleman, No. 19-0087/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether Specification 1 of Charge VII is multiplicious with Specification 1 of Charge I, as they are part of the same transaction.
Case Links:
• ACCA opinion
• Blog post: CAAF grants review
• Appellant’s brief
• Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
• Appellant’s reply brief
Followed by:
United States v. Hyppolite, II., Nos.19-0119/AF & 19-0197/AF (CAAFlog case page)
Granted issue: Whether the military judge’s erroneous admission of evidence regarding Specifications 1, 2, and 3 as a common plan or scheme for Specifications 4 and 5 was harmless.
Certified issue: Did the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals err when it found the military judge abused his discretion by ruling that the evidence regarding Specifications 1, 2, and 3 could be considered as evidence of a common plan or scheme for Specifications 4 and 5.
Case Links:
• AFCCA opinion
• Blog post: CAAF grants review
• Blog post: JAG cross-certifies
• Granted Issue: Appellant’s brief
• Granted Issue: Appellee’s (Gov’t Div.) brief (granted issue
• Certified Issue: Cross-Appellant’s (Gov’t Div.) brief
• Certified Issue: Cross-Appellee’s brief
• Certified Issue: Cross-Appellant’s (Gov’t Div.) reply brief
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.
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’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.
Last week CAAF granted review in an Army case and the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force filed a cross-certification in a case in which CAAF granted review last month.
Mil. R. Evid. 404(b) permits admission of evidence of uncharged acts for non-propensity purposes such as proving knowledge, intent, or the existence of a plan.
In the Air Force case of United States v. Hyppolite, No. 39358 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 25, 2018) (link to slip op.), the Air Force CCA considered convictions of unlawful sexual touchings of four individuals where the prosecution was allowed to use each alleged touching as evidence of the accused’s plan to commit the other touchings:
The Government argued . . . that Appellant’s conduct admitted to prove each charged offense could properly be used under Mil. R. Evid. 404(b) as evidence that Appellant had a pattern or common plan of engaging in sexual conduct with his friends after they had been drinking and were asleep or trying to fall asleep.
Slip op. at 8. Of five charged specifications (one of which – specification 2 – resulted in an acquittal) the CCA concluded that some were admissible as evidence of a plan to commit others, but all were not admissible to prove all:
the military judge erred in concluding that evi-dence of sexual contact supporting Specifications 1–3 made more probable a fact of consequence for Specifications 4 and 5 and vice versa.
Slip op. at 11. The CCA then found one conviction (specification 1) factually insufficient and the erroneous 404(b) ruling harmless with respect to the other convictions.
Last week CAAF granted review of the CCA’s finding of harmlessness:
No. 19-0119/AF. U.S. v. Ralph J. Hyppolite, II. CCA 39358. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE’S ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE REGARDING SPECIFICATIONS 1, 2, AND 3 AS A COMMON PLAN OR SCHEME FOR SPECIFICATIONS 4 AND 5 WAS HARMLESS.
Briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25.
