Note: This page may include cases set for argument in the near future.
|Cases heard at oral argument this term:||14|
|Argued cases decided by authored decision:||1|
|Argued cases decided per curiam or by summary disposition:||0|
|Argued cases pending decision:||13|
|Other cases noted below:||0|
Cases Heard at Oral Argument Pending Decision (chronological by date of argument):
United States v. Rice, No. 19-0178/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on October 16, 2019): A single granted issue questions the Army CCA’s published decision that found a double jeopardy violation but did not give any relief.
United States v. Hennis, No. 17-0263/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on October 22, 2019): Hennis is a capital case, CAAF’s review is mandatory, and each side will get 60 minutes (three times the normal 20 minutes) to argue five issues challenging jurisdiction and rulings by the military judge.
United States v. Bess, No. 19-0086/NA (CAAFlog case page) (argued on October 23, 2019): Three issues challenge the racial composition of the court-martial panel and a ruling by the military judge that denied a defense request for discovery about the racial composition of the unit.
United States v. Jessie, No. 19-0192/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on November 5, 2019): Three granted issues challenge the Army CCA’s refusal to consider confinement conditions (including a policy prohibiting all contact with children, direct or indirect) as part of its sentence appropriateness review.
United States v. Muller, No. 19-0230/AF (CAAFlog case page) (argued on November 5, 2019): CAAF is reviewing rules related to the remand of a case to a convening authority for correction of the record of trial.
United States v. Davis, No. 19-0104/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on November 6, 2019): One issue – granted after the Supreme Court decided United States v. Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2196 (2019) – questions whether the word knowingly in Article 120c(a)(2) applies to the consent element.
United States v. Turner, No. 19-0158/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on November 6, 2019): CAAF is reviewing the adequacy of a specification of attempted murder that did not explicitly allege that the killing was unlawful.
United States v. Easterly, No. 19-0398/AF (CAAFlog case page) (argued on December 4, 2019): The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force certified this case to challenge the Air Force CCA’s finding of plain error in the military judge’s failure to instruct the members on the effect of a punitive discharge on a possible disability retirement.
United States v. Finch, No. 19-0298/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on December 4, 2019): A single granted issue questions whether an alleged victim’s prior statement was properly admitted as a prior consistent statement under Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B).
United States v. Wall, No. 19-0143/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on January 14, 2020): In this case and in Gonzalez, CAAF is reviewing whether a CCA may reassess a sentence while also authorizing a rehearing.
United States v. Gonzalez, No. 19-0297/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on January 14, 2020): In this case and in Wall, CAAF is reviewing whether a CCA may reassess a sentence while also authorizing a rehearing.
United States v. Washington, No. 19-0252/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on January 15, 2020): CAAF is reviewing whether it was error for the military judge to admit the testimony of an Army Sexual Harassment Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) program representative that “when a person says ‘no’ it means stop, walk away.”
United States v. Avery, No. 19-0259/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on January 15, 2020): A single granted issue questions whether the Article 120b(c) offense of sexual abuse of a child preempts the enumerated Article 134 offense of indecent language in cases involving communications to children.
Authored Decisions (chronological by date of decision):
United States v. Guardado, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Jan. 15, 2020) (CAAFlog case page): Holding that its own precedent regarding an accused’s right to restoration in rank and pay pending a rehearing is not binding on the military pay agency, a majority of the court finds no intent to punish the appellant when that pay agency refused to restore his pay.
Summary & Per Curiam Decisions in Argued Cases (chronological by date of decision):