No. 15-0664/AF. U.S. v. Sean J. Chero. CCA 38470. 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 hereby granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE CONCLUDED APPELLANT’S MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT WAS 30 YEARS CONFINEMENT, TOTAL FORFEITURES AND A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE.
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 15-0476/AR. U.S. v. Eric L. Rapert. CCA 20130309. 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 hereby granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE FINDING OF GUILTY FOR CHARGE I AND ITS SPECIFICATION FOR COMMUNICATING A THREAT IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE THE COMMENTS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE A THREAT UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN ELONIS v. UNITED STATES, 575 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015).
Are you at a base overseas?
Do you have foreign national witnesses or foreign language documents as evidence in your case?
United States v. Aifang Ye, No. 12-10576 (9th Cir. 2015)
Jershun v. State (FL).
TheDOD IG Semiannual Report to the Congress has been issued for the reporting period of October 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015 is on line. The report complies with a requirement of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The report is a summary.
6 June is Leg Day for Navy Appellate Defense.
Happy leg day all.
United States v. Nettles decided by CAAF today.
We granted review to determine whether the Air Force had personal jurisdiction over Appellant at the time of his courtmartial. We hold that it did not, and that therefore the judgment of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) is vacated, the findings and sentence are set aside, and the case is dismissed.
Michael G. Heyman, Professor Emeritus, The John Marshall Law School (Chicago) .
Due Process Limits on Accomplice Liability
In a prior piece in this journal, I noted some disturbing developments in the law of
The Real Cost Of Having Commanders In Charge Of Military Justice
This article has appeared in Task & Purpose as a result of United States v. Woods, decided by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces on 18 June 2015.
Incredibly, a senior naval officer was appointed to be the president of a court-martial panel when in a questionnaire prepared when first told she’d be a court-martial member in the future, the member answered thus about the presumption of innocence.
Protect Our Defenders (POD) has this to say about the recent vote on Sen. Gillibrand’s Military Justice Improvement Act.
Last week, 50 U.S. Senators stood with survivors and voted for Senator Gillibrand’s Military Justice Improvement Act (MJIA).
For two years in a row, a majority of the Senate has told the Pentagon to fix the arbitrary and biased military justice system. Unfortunately, this common-sense legislation was blocked with a threat of a filibuster, as it was last year, requiring 60 votes to pass instead of a simple majority.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
