Summary Disposition: Vanvalkenburgh

"No. 20-0294/AF. U.S. v. Ryan M. Vanvalkenburgh. CCA 39571. On further consideration of the granted issues and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that Appellant forfeited his challenge to the constitutionality of Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 912(f)(4) and that Appellant has not established plain error. We have determined that Appellant did not waive his constitutional challenge to R.C.M. 912(f)(4) by intentionally relinquishing a known right. We do not consider the possibility that the constitutional challenge was waived by operation of law under R.C.M. 905(e) or any other R.C.M. provision because the Government has not made this argument. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed."

For reference: 
​
R.C.M. 912(f)(4)
(4) Waiver. The grounds for challenge in subparagraph (f)(1)(A) of this rule may not be waived. Notwithstanding the absence of a challenge or waiver of a challenge by the parties, the military judge may, in the interest of justice, excuse a member against whom a challenge for cause would lie. When a challenge for cause has been denied, the successful use of a peremptory challenge by either party, excusing the challenged member from further participation in the court-martial, shall preclude further consideration of the challenge of that excused member upon later review. Further, failure by the challenging party to exercise a peremptory challenge against any member shall constitute waiver of further consideration of the challenge upon later review.