CAAFlog
  • Home

CAAFlog

CAAF Preview: United States v. Scott

11/16/2020

3 Comments

 
​On Tuesday November 17, 2020, CAAF will hear oral arguments in 
United States v. Scott
 
CAAF granted review on the following issue: WHETHER APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE PRESENTENCING PHASE OF HIS TRIAL.
 
CAAF briefs here.
     Major Jason Scott was convicted by a military judge sitting as a general court-martial pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of adultery and one specification of failure to obey a lawful order, in violation of Articles 92 and 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced appellant to forfeit $3000 pay per month for three months, to be restricted to post for thirty days, and to be dismissed from the service. The convening authority approved the findings and the sentence. 
 
     On appeal, ACCA affirmed the findings but not the sentence, and ordered a Dubay hearing. After the Dubay hearing, ACCA affirmed Appellant’s findings and sentence, and subsequently denied reconsideration. Appellant now appeals to CAAF.
 
PERTINENT FACTS
     Appellant and Mrs. HM engaged in a sexual relationship after meeting at an on-base gym at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, initially, Appellant did not know that Mrs. HM was married. Mrs. HM’s husband, SFC AM, was deployed to Afghanistan when Mrs. HM’s relationship with Appellant began. After learning that Mrs. HM was married, Appellant continued the relationship and even introduced her as his girlfriend to COL MH, his supervisor. COL MH, after learning that Mrs. HM was married to a deployed soldier, ordered Appellant in writing to “cease and desist all contact” with Mrs. HM. However, Appellant did not end the relationship and continued his affair with Mrs. HM.
 
   Appellant was charged with adultery and disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer. Appellant submitted an offer to plead guilty to adultery and of violating a lawful order, after advice from defense counsel. 
 
ACCA’S DECISION
 
     The Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) affirmed the military judge’s finding and sentence and denied a motion for reconsideration.
  
THE ARGUMENTS
 
    Appellant argues that Trial defense counsel’s performance in the presentencing phase was deficient, and that he was prejudiced by their deficiency. Even though character witnesses testified on Appellant’s behalf, Appellant argues that there were five additional character witnesses that his trial defense counsel did not call to testify on his behalf. Additionally, Appellant argues that his trial defense counsel did not present extenuating or mitigating evidence, and that their failure to do so resulted in him being dismissed from the service.
 
    On the other side, Appellee argues that Appellant’s trial defense counsel was not deficient because there was nothing defense counsel could have done to mitigate Appellant’s sentence. In support of this argument, Appellee cites witnesses that did testify on behalf of Appellant, and ACCA which note that “all [of these witnesses] gave a middling assessment of appellant’s performance, and none could testify about MAJ Scott’s service that predated his misconduct.” Given this, Appellee argues that Appellant did not have deficient counsel. 

Peter-gaye Howell

Intern

3 Comments
Brenner M. Fissell
11/16/2020 01:39:29 pm

No complicated legal issue to resolve here, but the court should be commended for taking on the review anyway. The total absence of a mitigation case should raise a red flag for further scrutiny.

Reply
Scott
11/16/2020 08:16:13 pm

This sounds like exactly the (rare) type of situation in which adultery should be criminally charged.

Reply
Scott
11/16/2020 08:18:03 pm

Incidentally, it’s a bold move to introduce the deployed NCO’s wife you’re banging to your supervisor.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Links
    CAAF
    -Daily Journal
    -Current Term Opinions
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    Joint R. App. Pro.
    Global MJ Reform
    LOC Mil. Law
    Army Lawyer
    Resources

    Categories

    All
    Daily Journal
    MJ Reform
    Question Time
    Scholarship
    Top Of The Year 2021
    Unanimous
    Week In Review

    Archives

    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020

The views expressed on this website are expressed in the authors' personal capacities.
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home