Here’s an interesting grant and remand from CAAF. No. 10-0265/AF. U.S. v. Douglas E. LONG. CCA 37044 (2009 CCA LEXIS 477). WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE ASSURANCES OF AIR FORCE OFFICIALS PROVIDED HIM WITH DE FACTO IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION. The decision of the United States Air Force Court…
Here are some CAAF grants/issues that should resonate in the field. No. 10-0332/AF. U.S. v. Yolanda FLORES. CCA S31621. Review granted on the following issue: WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL IMPROPERLY COMMENTED ON APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT THUS DEPRIVING APPELLANT OF A FAIR TRIAL. No. 10-0334/AF. U.S. v. Dennis R.…
In United States v. Serianne, the CAAF affirmed an NMCCA decision that a Navy order to report civilian DWI/DUI convictions was unlawful and not enforceable at court-martial. Navy Times reports: The Navy’s self-reporting requirement for drunken driving arrests will fundamentally change as a result of a recent military court ruling,…
United States v. Roach has been returned to AFCCA for a second time. Initially the case was sent back because appellant’s case was decided before his counsel submitted a brief, and because the chief judge on his panel had made some public comments relating to the case. This time the…
CAAF has decided United States v. Bagstad. Judge Stuckey wrote for himself, Effron and Ryan, with Baker writing a dissent for himself and Erdmann. We granted review to determine whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying Appellant’s challenge for cause against Captain (Capt) Stojka, who sat with his…
United States v. Matthews is an interesting new Army decision. In this case the appellate courts ordered a DuBay hearing. During that hearing the prior military judge testified as to his rationale for various decisions at trial. Using that testimony, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals applied the harmless beyond…
The CGCCA has issued a 2-1 opinion in United States v. Lucas, and it is likely a case to watch with CAAF. The CGCCA has been the most vigilant of the services in protecting an accused’s post-trial rights, so the decision in this case seems odd. There is no evidence…
CAAF has decided United States v. Campbell, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009). We granted review of three issues raised by the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), as follows: I. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN REASSESSING APPELLANT’S SENTENCE, AS (1) ITS REASSESSMENT CALCULUS…