This week at SCOTUS: I'm not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I'm tracking three cases:
This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week. Both arguments will occur at law schools as part of Project Outreach:
Tuesday, April 4, 2017, at 12:30 p.m., at the Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, Indiana:
United States v. Mitchell, No. 17-0153/AR (CAAFlog case page)
I. Whether the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause is violated when a suspect voluntarily unlocks his phone without giving his personal identification number to investigators.
II. Whether the Edwards rule is violated when investigators ask a suspect, who has requested counsel and returned to his place of duty, to unlock his phone incident to a valid search authorization.
III. Whether, assuming investigators violated appellant's Fifth Amendment privilege or the Edwards rule, the military judge erred by suppressing the evidence.
• ACCA opinion
• Appellant's (Army App. Gov't Div.) brief
• Appellee's brief
• Appellant's reply brief
• Amicus brief: Air Force App. Gov't Div.
• Amicus Brief: Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, and ACLU of the District of Columbia
• Amicus Brief: Two Notre Dame law professors
• Amicus Brief: Notre Dame law student
• Blog post: Argument preview
Wednesday, April 5, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., Claude W. Pettit College of Law, Ohio Northern University, Ada, Ohio:
United States v. Herrmann, No. 16-0599/AR (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to find appellant committed reckless endangerment, which requires proof the conduct was likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm.
• ACCA opinion (75 M.J. 672)
• Appellant's brief
• Appellee's (Army App. Gov't Div.) brief
• Appellant's reply brief
• Amicus brief: Law student
• Blog post: Argument preview (in progress)
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA's website shows no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, April 6, 2017, at noon:
United States v. Blatney, No. 2016-16
Issue: Whether the military judge erred by suppressing appellee's act of unlocking his cellular phone as well as the con-tents of appellee's phone pursuant to the Fifth Amendment.
This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA's oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in two cases this week:
Wednesday, April 5, 2017, at 10 a.m.
United States v. Hale, No. 201600015
A panel of officer and enlisted members sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of failing to obey a lawful general order, one specification of wrongful use of an anabolic steroid, two specifications of rape, one specification of aggravated assault, one specification of adultery, one specification of kidnapping, and one specification of indecent language, in violation of Articles 92, 112a, 120, 128, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 912a, 920, 928, and 934 (2012). The members sentenced the appellant to confinement for twenty-six years, reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered the sentence executed.
I. Whether the military judge erred in admitting evidence obtained from the search of SSgt Hale's gym bag as well as the results of the urinalysis test that was conducted pursuant to the fruits of that search?
II. Whether the government's attempt to intimidate detailed defense counsel and its improper arguments at trial amounted to prosecutorial misconduct and prejudicial spillover effect during closing arguments?
III. Whether appellant received ineffective assistance from his defense counsel?
Thursday, April 6, 2017, at 2 p.m., at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, Founders Hall Auditorium, 3351 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201:
United States v. Harris, No. 201600207
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of attempted robbery, desertion, and aggravated arson, in violation of Articles 80, 85, and 126, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 885, and 926 (2012). The military judge sentenced the appellant to eight years of confinement, reduction to pay-grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. In accordance with a pretrial agreement, the convening authority suspended all confinement in excess of seventy-two months. The convening authority approved the remainder of the sentence and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered it executed.
Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he refused to order day-for-day confinement credit for the period that the government did not comply with R.C.M. 305(i)(2)(d).
Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/caaflog/~3/9rbeDaqBjhs/
Sent from my iPad