CAAFlog
  • Home
  • About
    • CAAFlog 2.0
  • Masthead
  • Contact / Submit Guest Post
  • NIMJ.org

CAAFlog

Week in Review

4/16/2021

0 Comments

 
ACCA

United States v. Meneses.
​A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his plea, of one specification of indecent recording, in violation of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920c [UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for seven months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. Consistent with the pretrial agreement, the convening authority approved the portion of the sentence extending to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 180 days, and reduction to the grade of E-1.
Appellant argues the military judge abused her discretion, by accepting his guilty plea because there was an insufficient factual basis for concluding that appellant indecently photographed the victim.
  • The government agreed as did the  court. [Note, there are cases where the government concedes and issue, the court disagrees, and finds against the appellant.]
  • Because Appellant did not challenge acceptance of the plea to making an indecent recording of the victim, the court amends the finding of guilty by deleting the words "photograph and" from the specification. In its pleading, the government agrees the record contains an insufficient factual basis concerning appellant photographing the victim and concurs with appellant's proposed remedy.
  • The modified findings and the sentence are affirmed.

Read More
0 Comments

Summary Disposition and a Certified Case

4/15/2021

0 Comments

 
"​Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition
 
No. 21-0138/NA. U.S. v. Calvin Halfacre. CCA 201900210. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted, and the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*
 
* It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to accurately reflect that Appellant pleaded guilty to each specification under Charge II excepting the language "was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and" in each specification and guilty to Charge II.
 
Certificate for Review Filed
 
No. 21-0222/NA. U.S. v. Chase T. Miller. CCA 201900234. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:
 
DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THE CONVENING AUTHORITY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION UNDER R.C.M. 1109 BY ACTING AFTER APPELLEE SUBMITTED R.C.M. 1106 CLEMENCY MATTERS BUT BEFORE THE MILITARY JUDGE ISSUED HIS WRITTEN POST-TRIAL RULING?
 
DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S REVIEW WAS UNINFORMED UNDER R.C.M. 1109 WHERE THE REVIEW WAS COMPLETED AFTER APPELLEE SUBMITTED R.C.M. 1106 CLEMENCY MATTERS AND REVIEW OF THE MILITARY JUDGE'S POST-TRIAL RULING WAS NOT REQUIRED UNDER R.C.M. 1109?
 
DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE POST-ACTION WRITTEN RULING WAS A SUBSTANTIAL OMISSION WHERE THE RULING WAS NOT AN R.C.M. 1106 MATTER AND NOTHING IN THE NEW RULES REQUIRED THE CONVENING AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE RULING PRIOR TO TAKING ACTION UNDER R.C.M. 1109 EVEN IF INCLUDED IN THE RECORD OF TRIAL?
 
Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 12th day of May, 2021."
Editor's note: Halfacre was granted review for a ​clerical correction, and therefore the petitioner is now eligible to petition for cert at SCOTUS. The same is not true of all the other cases that, for whatever reason, failed to gain enough votes to be granted review. Does this make sense?
0 Comments

Does Changing Politics Equal Reform?

4/15/2021

4 Comments

 
A Washington Post article that's worth the read:

Pentagon leaders have opposed plans overhauling the military system for trying sexual assault for years. Has the time come for change?
4 Comments

D.C. Circuit splits the difference on judicial disqualification.

4/12/2021

4 Comments

 
As CAAFLog readers may remember, the D.C. Circuit heard argument this past January in a mandamus case to come out of the military commissions with potential relevance to military justice as a whole. Again, the question was whether a military judge serving on one of the military commissions violated judicial ethics by seeking employment elsewhere in the government without telling the parties. In 2019, the Circuit had vacated almost five years of proceedings in the Al-Nashiri case after Col Vance Spath, USAF, had secretly applied for an appointment as an immigration judge. Most recently, the Circuit confronted the same problem with CAPT Kirk Waits, USN, the military judge who initially presided over the case of United States v. Al-Iraqi (aka Nashwan Al-Tamir).

On Friday, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision denying the writ in In re Al-Tamir, though making a few notable holdings along the way that military justice practitioners are likely to find worthy of note. In something of a judicial eye roll, Judge Tatel, who wrote the opinion in both the Al-Nashiri and Al-Tamir cases, started his opinion for the Court by describing the situation as an "unfortunately familiar quandary." 

With no real debate over the merits of whether  CAPT Waits should have disqualified himself, the only real question the Court confronted was the remedy. Tamir had sought to have his case dismissed outright, a remedy the lower military commission courts had declined in favor of permitting Tamir to seek reconsideration of any decision rendered by the military commission that Tamir could show had been tainted by Waits' misconduct. 

At oral argument, the Circuit seemed concerned by the narrowness of the proposed remedy. This led counsel for the government to stipulate from the podium that Tamir could seek to have any ruling reconsidered without making a particularized showing that the ruling was tainted. Tamir suggested that this would still be inadequate, but the Circuit disagreed, finding that the government's concession gave Tamir everything that the vacatur had achieved in Al-Nashiri, "except that it affords al-Tamir the added benefit of allowing him to retain favorable rulings."

A trickier aspect of the case revolved around the job search of Matthew Blackwood, the "supervisory attorney advisor," who had served on Tamir's case for most of the last half-decade. The Court was clearly disturbed by Blackwood's job hunt, but ultimately got stuck on precisely what ethical standards governed an "attorney advisor" in the first place. The government had insisted that attorney advisors should be afforded the lenient rules afforded to judicial law clerks. Tamir had said the ordinary rules of judicial conduct should apply. The Court, for its part, figured that attorney advisors fell somewhere in between and the legal uncertainty over what rules applied proved fatal under the strict mandamus standard that applies in the D.C. Circuit. 

The Court, therefore, held that it needed resolve the issue. "We have some concerns about Blackwood’s failure to disclose to his supervising judges his pursuit of outside employment and his use of his work on the commission in his applications," the Court wrote. However, "we cannot say that his choices 'clearly and indisputably' gave rise to a conflict warranting recusal." The Court accordingly denied relief and left the merits to another day.

Michel Paradis

LOAC Editor

4 Comments

New Grant

4/12/2021

0 Comments

 
🚨🚨🚨
"Order Granting Petition for Review
 
No. 21-0184/AR. U.S. v. Joseph P. Popp. CCA 20190333. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:
 
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION WHERE THE CONVENING AUTHORITY ELECTED TO TAKE NO ACTION ON THE SENTENCE FOR A SPECIFICATION ALLEGING THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2019.
 
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25."

​ACCA decision here.
0 Comments

Save the Date: A Conversation about the Relationship between Civilian and Military Defense Counsel

4/10/2021

0 Comments

 
CAAFlog will hold a virtual panel conversation about the relationship between civilian and military defense counsel on April 27th at 12:00PM EST. Details and link posted at a closer date. 
0 Comments

Scholarship Saturday: Military service and criminality

4/10/2021

0 Comments

 
In February, the journal Social Sciences published an article authored by the Chair in Justice Studies at Montclair State University, Dr. Christopher Salvatore, and the Director of Research at the National Police Foundation, Dr. Travis Taniguchi. Their publicly peer-reviewed article is entitled “Military Service and Offending Behaviors of Emerging Adults: A Conceptual Review” and discusses whether military service suppresses or encourages criminality among young adults. Salvatore and Taniguchi ultimately conclude that more thorough research is required, but also offer a fascinating discussion of the research to date.


Read More
0 Comments

United States v. Henry

4/10/2021

3 Comments

 
CAAF finds in favor of the government for their Article 62(a)(1)(B), UCMJ, appeal in Henry. The court finds the military judge abused his discretion in excluding four  statements as hearsay. Chief Judge Stucky writes for the court with Judges Ohlson and Maggs separately dissenting for generally similar reasons.

The government offered prior out of court statements as either excited utterances or present sense impressions under Mil. R. Evid. 803. The military judge disagreed as did the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. The basis for the MJs exclusion was a "that the Government failed to lay a proper foundation, specifically that there was insufficient evidence as to when the alleged assault occurred."

There are two ACCA opinions, one in January 2020 and one in June 2020. Judge Stucky tells us that, 
At trial, the Government sought to introduce the following four statements for the truth of the matter asserted, under the excited utterance or present sense impressions exceptions to the rule against hearsay:

       (1) JH’s statement to SSG DC: “He’s beating my mom. He’s beating my mom.”

       (2) JH’s exclamation: “You better not hit her again.”

       (3) KH’s statement to SSG DC: “He hit me. He hit me.”

     (4) KH’s statement to the 911 operator that her husband had “been beating me for the last couple of hours.”

In an Article 39(a) session on the admissibility of these statements, KH testified for the defense. She stated that she had told JH to run over to SSG DCs house and tell him to call 911, and she lied when she told SSG DC that the accused had beaten her. At the Article 39(a) session, the military judge denied the admission of the statements as exceptions to hearsay or under the residual hearsay exception. He did not make a finding that KH’s recantation was at all credible, nor did he reference it his ruling.
The MJ had four reasons to exclude the statements.
  1. "The Government did not establish when the alleged startling event occurred."
  2. The testifying witness "did not know the declarants well, he could not say whether they were speaking while under the stress of an exciting event.
  3. The Government had not shown that JH had personally witnessed the assault that he described."
  4. The alleged injuries did not match the description of the assault.
​Since the military judge based his ruling on an incorrect view of the law—requiring proof of personal knowledge and considering each statement in isolation—and a view of the facts that leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake was committed—that there was no evidence as to when the assault occurred or that JH could have observed it—we hold that he abused his discretion by excluding the four statements of JH and KH. 
Judges Ohlson and Maggs conclude--my interpretation--that the majority ignore the abuse of discretion standard. While admitting the judge could have ruled either way and been right, the dissenters find the military judges findings were not clearly erroneous and he followed the law.

​Cheers, P.C.
3 Comments

Week in Review

4/9/2021

0 Comments

 
AFCCA

United States v. Humpel.

A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, in accordance with his pleas pursuant to a pretrial agreement (PTA), of using drugs. Sentence: Big Chicken Dinner, 2 months, and two sides.

United States v. Huff. Appellant was sentenced to a Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 24 months for two specifications of possessing CP. Appellant is a winner on his fourth assignment of error.

On appeal, Appellant raises four assignments of error: (1) whether the military judge erred by admitting a certain exhibit over defense objection; (2) whether certain language should be excepted from two specifications; (3) whether the entry of judgment should be corrected to reflect that Charge I and its specification were dismissed “with prejudice;” and (4) whether the convening authority erred by not taking action on Appellant’s sentence as required by Executive Order 13,825, § 6(b), 83 Fed. Reg. 9889, 9890 (8 Mar. 2018), and Article 60, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860.
And AFCCA laps Navy, see below.

Read More
0 Comments

Tensions between civilian and military defense counsel?

4/8/2021

17 Comments

 
I was perusing the legal ethics in military justice symposium that I posted a while back. I revisited this article about the "house divided" -- tensions between civilian and uniformed defense counsel. Murdough writes: "The military justice system puts its uniformed MDC in this position, and therefore, the military services should provide their MDC with more comprehensive ethical standards and guidelines to include explicitly permitting, if not directing, MDC to share concerns about a CDC’s performance with their client. Congress and the President should reform Article 38 and its implementing regulations to ensure CDC cannot assume that MDC will shore up their inadequate performance." This is a bit strange to read, because every story that I hear is one of an experienced civilian defense lawyer dealing with a new military lawyer. The impediments to gaining experience have been well documented in past posts by Don Christensen. Which is the bigger problem: inexperienced civilian defense counsel or inexperienced uniformed defense counsel? Anecdotes welcome.

Brenner Fissell

EIC


Read Don Rehkopf's article, THE CARE AND FEEDING OF YOUR CIVILIAN DEFENSE COUNSEL, here.
17 Comments

Project Outreach this Week

4/7/2021

1 Comment

 
CAAF is hearing cases this week and lists them as "Project Outreach." Does anyone know if CAAF is physically travelling?
1 Comment

Kastenberg on Retired General Officers & Presidents

4/6/2021

0 Comments

 
the_crisis_of_june_2020.pdf
File Size: 263 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

Nation's Oldest Living General Turns 107--Is Still Subject to UCMJ

4/5/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Happy 107th birthday to the nation's oldest living Air Force general: ​Harry Edgar Goldsworthy. He retired from the military in 1973, but is still subject to liability under the UCMJ for his conduct. 10 USC 802(a)(4). 
0 Comments

Week in Review -- 02042021

4/2/2021

8 Comments

 
SCOTUS

Prof. Berman at Sentencing Law & Policy, has this note.
The Supreme Court generally does not view itself as in the business of error correction, but it still sometimes finds a few criminal cases in which it just cannot resist fixing what looks like an incorrect ruling below.  Today's order list, for example, brings a per curiam summary reversal in Mays v. Hines, No. 20–507 (S. Ct. Mar. 29, 2021) (available here), in which the Court corrects the work of the Sixth Circuit via an eight-page opinion that starts and ends this way:

A Tennessee jury found Anthony Hines guilty of murdering Katherine Jenkins at a motel.  Witnesses saw Hines fleeing in the victim’s car and wearing a bloody shirt, and his family members heard him admit to stabbing someone at the motel.  But almost 35 years later, the Sixth Circuit held that Hines was entitled to a new trial and sentence because his attorney should have tried harder to blame another man.  In reaching its conclusion, the Sixth Circuit disregarded the overwhelming evidence of guilt that supported the contrary conclusion of a Tennessee court.  This approach plainly violated Congress’ prohibition on disturbing state-court judgments on federal habeas review absent an error that lies “‘beyond any possibility for fair-minded disagreement.’” Shinn v. Kayer, 592 U.S. ___, ___ (2020) (per curiam) (slip op., at 1); 28 U.S.C. §2254(d).

​Notably, Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from this per curiam ruling, but without any opinion, so this was technically an 8-1 error correction.
ACCA

United States v. Olson.

​Appellant was convicted by a military judge of two specifications of rape, one specification of assault  consummated by battery, and one specification of making a false official statement. The military judge sentenced appellant to eight years Army rations complemented with a Duck Dinner and two sides.

Appellant raised the following issues: (l) error in admitting prior consistent statements made by the victim; (2) error in admitting testimony as to the victim's character for  truthfulness; (3) error in allowing a government expert to testify about matters outside the scope of her expertise during redirect examination; and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court found the issues to be without merit. The court did address a claim on appeal of UMC but declined to exercise its authority to give relief for the waived error. The court found no prejudicial error for evidence of the victims "virginity" at the time of the offense, or evidence of an STD, or evidence about a polygraph result. In addressing the cumulative error doctrine the court said,
Given the number of errors in this case, we must also consider the cumulative effect of the erroneously admitted evidence. "[A] number of errors, no one perhaps sufficient to merit reversal, in combination [may] necessitate the disapproval of a finding." We review the cumulative effect of plain and preserved errors de nova. Id. We reverse only if we find that the cumulative errors denied appellant a fair trial. Id. In this case there was strong evidence of appellant's guilt and none of the errors related to improperly admitted evidence materially prejudiced appellant's substantial rights. As previously discussed, the strength of the government's case was based upon appellant's devastating admissions to law enforcement, the victim's testimony about the assault, the victim's subsequent demeanor and immediate disclosure to multiple friends. Under the circumstances of this case, we find appellant was not denied a fair trial.

Read More
8 Comments

The Uselessness of FOIA

4/1/2021

7 Comments

 
Some readers may remember that I am attempting to study the condition of military prisons, beginning with Marine Corps brigs. To that end, I filed this FOIA request last November: "Please provide all Article 138 complaints filed by prisoners in USMC Brig Camp Pendleton and USMC Brig Camp Lejeune from 1/1/2010 to 11/1/2020." After four months, I received a response denying my request:

"This responds to your November 17, 2020, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for “all Article 138 complaints filed by prisoners in USMC Brig Camp Pendleton.”.... Please be advised, a proper FOIA request must “reasonably describe” the records sought. Requests that seek “any and all” documents/records, “any documents or information,” or “all documents/information” are impermissibly broad and do not comply with FOIA's requirement that the request for records reasonably describe such records. For the foregoing reason, we will administratively close this request."" This was signed by a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps with the title of SJA. 

I have no doubt that gaining access to these records would take months, if not years, and would require a federal court lawsuit. Why does it have to be this hard? I know that FOIA has been used to great effect in the Bergdahl litigation and in other instances, but I would bet that on the whole it is pretty much useless unless one is willing to expend substantial time and resources. FOIA has not lived up to its promise.

Brenner Fissell

EIC

7 Comments

Aliens did it--lost the evidence

4/1/2021

3 Comments

 
On March 24, 2021, in an unpublished opinion, AFCCA affirmed the findings and sentence in United States v. Rothe. (Opinion here.)
 
Appellant connected with a girl who he thought was a 14-year-old high school freshman named “Amanda.” However, “Amanda” was an online persona developed by AFOSI agents as part of a child sex sting operation. Over the next two months, Appellant continued to engage in sexual conversations with “Amanda,” including sending explicit photos of himself. The Appellant was arrested and charged with two specifications of attempting to commit a lewd act on a child under the age of 16 in violation of Article 80, UCMJ. A general court-martial composed of officer members convicted Appellant of both specifications and sentenced him to dismissal from the Air Force. On appeal, Appellant raised two issues.
 
First, Appellant claimed that the military judge should have abated the proceedings after the Government inadvertently deleted raw data from the iPad that AFOSI agents used when posing as “Amanda,” instead of only relying on a PDF file composed of screenshots of their conversations and raw data from Appellant’s phone. For the military judge to abate the proceedings under R.C.M. 703(f)(2), Appellant was required to show that there was no adequate substitute for the missing evidence, that the evidence was essential to a fair trial, and that the defense was not at fault for the missing evidence. See also United States v. Simmermacher, 74 M.J. 196 (C.A.A.F. 2015).
 
[Insert hyperbole and cynicism] Let us generally look at how the analysis of lost evidence works.

  • Because the defense has not had access to the lost material, they cannot articulate any relevance or importance of the missing material—they lose.
  • The military judge can, however (as suggested in Rothe), discern that nothing in the lost evidence was exculpatory or of other investigative value—the defense loses.
 
OK, thinking about this some more,
  • The defense cannot say what of importance is missing—they lose.
  • The military judge knows, however, nothing important was lost—the defense loses.
 
OK, let us try another way.
  • The defense does not know what was lost—the military judge applies a rebuttable presumption of prejudice—the defense wins when the prosecution cannot rebut the presumption.
  • No, wait, that would be a win for the defense—so, on second thoughts—they lose because that would otherwise impose a burden on the prosecution.

Read More
3 Comments

Hippolyte

3/31/2021

1 Comment

 
The AFCCA has denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in United States v. Hippolyte.
​The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces issued a decision in Petitioner’s case on 1 August 2019, affirming the findings and sentence as approved by this court. United States v. Hyppolite, 79 M.J. 161, 167 (C.A.A.F. 2019). Thereafter, Petitioner did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, and direct review of Petitioner’s case was complete. On 8 December 2020, the commander of the Air Force District of Washington ordered execution of Petitioner’s dishonorable discharge, having already ordered the other portions of Petitioner’s sentence executed. 
Accordingly, the AFCCA held it lacks jurisdiction.

Here are links to the prior decisions in the case: AFCCA, CAAF.

Hyppolyte was charged with five abusive sexual contacts. He was sentenced to seven years and a Duck Dinner with all the trimmings.

The issue at CAAF asked if evidence of one or more charges on the charge sheet could be used and argued under Mil. R. Evid. 404(b) to demonstrate a "common plan or scheme." Now might be a good opportunity to re-read the CAAF opinion for a discussion on how Mil. R. Evid. 404(b)(1) and (b)(2) work at trial.

Use of such evidence to prove a propensity is prohibited. Mil. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). But,
​Under M.R.E. 404(b)(2), while evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act may not be used to show character or propensity, it “may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” As the motions judge correctly recognized, we have previously held that one proper purpose of such evidence is to prove the existence of a plan or scheme. United States v. Munoz, 32 M.J. 359 (C.M.A. 1991); United States v. Johnson, 49 M.J. 467 (C.A.A.F. 1998).
The trial judge had admitted the evidence to demonstrate a common "scheme." AFFCA disagreed that the evidence showed a common scheme but found the error harmless. The CAAF affirmed AFCCA but,
[C]onclude[d] that the motions judge and trial judge did not abuse their discretion in their M.R.E. 404(b) ruling. We therefore d[id] not reach the issue of prejudice.
Judge Ohlson filled a dissent in which he argued the AFFCA was right as to the abuse of discretion and the trial error was materially prejudicial.

Oh, and should you ask, the writ was filed in preparation for a federal habeas petition and to show exhaustion of the military appellate system. I suspect they did not petition the Supremes directly because it would be a fruitless exercise--not an issue the court is likely to grant on. Cf. Noyd v. Bond, 395 U.S. 683, 698, n.11 (1969).  We do not believe that petitioner may properly be required to exhaust a remedy which may not exist. Cf. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Weld County, 247 U.S. 282 (1918); Township of Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620 (1946).


​Cheers, PC.
1 Comment

Weaver on CA Sentencing Adjustment

3/30/2021

1 Comment

 
A recent article by CAAFlog intern Ensign Jacob Weaver has been circulated on SSRN:

​Restoring the Power of the Convening Authority to Adjust Sentences

"In 2013, Congress abrogated the power of certain military officers to reduce court-martial sentences, thereby eliminating a military defendant’s best hope for efficient and effective relief from common legal errors in the military justice system. While the overhaul of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in 2016 promised significant reform, it ultimately failed to substantially
reduce common legal errors This Note analyzes how the 2013 and 2016 reforms have combined to prevent military defendants from receiving timely and adequate relief. In light of this analysis, this Note suggests an amendment to the UCMJ that would restore to certain officers a limited authority to reduce sentences based on legal errors. Such a reform ultimately addresses the core concerns that led to the 2013 revision while simultaneously providing an efficient and effective remedy for common legal errors, furthering the UCMJ’s aim of promoting justice and maintaining good order and discipline."

Editor's note: This is a welcome addition to the CA conversation and a fine piece of scholarship, but we should be candid here. This reform is inconceivable in the current political environment. 
1 Comment

CAAF Publishes Scott -- On IAC

3/29/2021

5 Comments

 
190365.pdf
File Size: 631 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

5 Comments

DOD IG Releases Report on Sexual Harassment Investigation

3/29/2021

0 Comments

 
Just one day after the members of the 90-day Commission were released, the DOD Inspector General released its report on Ronnie J. Booth, former Auditor General of the Navy, finding that he engaged in a "pervasive pattern of sexual harassment and quid pro quo sexual propositions when interacting with female subordinates at the Naval Audit Service." The IG's report states that this pattern of abuse occurred over the course of 20 years. 

Elizabeth M. Berecin

Managing Editor

0 Comments

Week in Review

3/28/2021

1 Comment

 
AFCCA

United States v. Arnold. “Appellant—a reservist—raised three issues: (1) whether the court-martial lacked jurisdiction to impose confinement on Appellant because his recall to active duty for trial was not properly authorized by the Secretary of the Air Force; (2) whether Appellant’s conviction violated the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause; and (3) whether Appellant was entitled to new post-trial processing due to errors in the post-trial process. We resolved the first two issues against Appellant, but we found that post-trial errors required new post-trial processing and action.” This was a case recalled to AFCCA based on completion of actions on remand.
 
United States v. Babian. There was no illegal pretrial confinement as argued by the Appellant.
 
United States v. Rothe. “Appellant raises two issues before this court: (1) whether the military judge erred in denying a defense motion to abate the proceedings due to the government’s destruction of evidence; and (2) whether the evidence is factually insufficient to sustain a guilty finding under either a subjective or objective test for the defense of entrapment.” (More to come on this one later in the week.)
 
United States v. Padilla. The Appellant raised four issues, but the case was remanded to correct various post-trial errors.

NMCCA
​

United States v. Berrian. “Appellant asserts two assignments of error [AOE]: (1) that the military judge abused his discretion by denying a challenge for cause for implied bias of a potential member with extensive experience as a victim advocate and (2) that it was plain error to admit a hearsay statement as a prior consistent statement. We find no prejudicial error and affirm.” This is a facts-based case, and the facts support no abuse of discretion.
 
PENDING APPELLATE CASES

United States v. Souders, trial at RAF Mildenhall. Souders was found guilty for viewing indecent material and possessing and viewing child pornography but was acquitted of attempted sexual assault of a child and one count of committing a lewd act on a child. Actions which got him nine years and a duck dinner.
1 Comment

Two Commander Discretion Arguments to Unpack

3/26/2021

6 Comments

 
We should dwell a bit on the two major arguments that appeared at the hearing, and which appear to be somewhat new (at least in emphasis). I will charitably reconstruct each.

For Commander Prosecutorial Discretion: the "it's also bad out there" argument."
  • Sexual assault is a widespread problem in the civilian age cohort most analogous to that of the military: college campuses. Sexual assault defendants who are college students will be subject to the state criminal law where their campus sits, and therefore subject to prosecution at the discretion of a legal professional (the district attorney). If the DA's professional expertise as applied to the exercise of his/her discretion has not impacted the widespread problem of sexual assault on college campuses, then the transfer of prosecution discretion from a military commander to a legal expert should not be expected to impact the similarly widespread problem of sexual assault in the military. 

Against Commander Prosecutorial Discretion: the "very few commanders can convene courts" argument.
  • Opponents of the transfer of prosecutorial discretion from commanders to lawyers claim that power over the initiation of a military justice case is an essential component of command. Command of humans in the military, including the power to command them to risk their lives in combat, requires that the same person that commands them to risk their lives also has the authority to decide whether they are prosecuted for criminal offenses. But this cannot possibly be true: only 3% of commanders have the authority to convene courts-martial at the "felony" level. If the 97% can get by without this authority (and they do), then prosecution authority is not inherent to command authority. 

​Are these good arguments? I leave it to you to discuss... 

Brenner Fissell

EIC

6 Comments

CAAF Publishes Upshaw

3/26/2021

1 Comment

 
Readers chose this as the case with the best briefing and oral argument by the Government of the last year. 
200176.pdf
File Size: 442 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

1 Comment

New Grants

3/25/2021

0 Comments

 
🚨🚨🚨

"Mandatory Review Case Filed
 
No. 21-0193/AR. U.S. v. Nidal M. Hasan. CCA 20130781. Notice is given that a case requiring mandatory review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals in which the affirmed sentence extends to death was filed under Rule 23 on this date. Appellant will file a brief under Rule 23(b) on or before the 24th day of May, 2021.
 
Orders Granting Petition for Review
 
No. 21-0089/MC. U.S. v. Jonathan Quezada. CCA 201900115. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:
 
THE MILITARY JUDGE INSTRUCTED MEMBERS THAT THEY COULD CONSIDER THE FACT THAT APPELLANT MADE THE FALSE OFFICIAL STATEMENT WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED AS EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS GUILTY OF ANOTHER CHARGED OFFENSE. DID THIS INSTRUCTION VIOLATE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE UNDER UNITED STATES v. HILLS, 75 M.J. 350 (2016)?
 
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
 
No. 21-0146/AF. U.S. v. Cory J. Frantz. CCA 39657. 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 LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT IT COULD NOT CONSIDER EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD TO DETERMINE SENTENCE APPROPRIATENESS UNDER ARTICLE 66(c), UCMJ.
 
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25."
0 Comments

Members of 90-Day Commission on Sexual Assault Announced

3/24/2021

8 Comments

 
Read the DoD Memorandum here.
8 Comments
<<Previous

    RSS Feed

    Subscribe
    Picture
    Home
    About
    Masthead
    Contact/Submit Post
    CAAFlog 1.0 Archive 


    ​Links

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

    Archives

    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
  • About
    • CAAFlog 2.0
  • Masthead
  • Contact / Submit Guest Post
  • NIMJ.org