450
E Street, Northwest
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
9:00 a.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Nathan J. Bankson,
Counsel for Appellee: Capt
Jaired D. Stallard,
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of
attempt to transfer obscene material to a minor, attempt to entice a
minor,
distribution of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. Granted issues
question: (1) whether sending, via a chat session, a hyperlink to a
Yahoo!
Briefcase containing images of child pornography constitutes knowingly
and
wrongfully distributing child pornography in interstate commerce
through the
internet, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2252A(a) (1) or clause 1 or 2
of
Article 134, UCMJ; and (2) whether utilizing a public computer to view
images
of child pornography contained in Yahoo! Briefcase, and accessed via a
hyperlink, sufficiently supports a conviction for knowingly and
wrongfully
possessing electronic images of child pornography in violation of
clause 1 or 2
of Article 134, UCMJ.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt Patrick B. Grant,
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Adam S.
Kazin,
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of AWOL,
distribution of ecstasy, and use of ecstasy. Granted issue questions whether Appellant’s
pleas to
all charges and specifications are not provident because the military
judge did
not explain the defense of lack of mental responsibility to Appellant,
did not
satisfy herself that counsel had evaluated the viability of the
defense, and
did not elicit facts from Appellant that negated the defense.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 15
minutes to present oral argument in this case.
Wednesday,
December 5, 2007
9:00 a.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT Anthony Yim, JAGC,
USNR
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Brian K.
Keller, USMC
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of
attempted murder, and reckless endangerment. Granted issue questions whether the military
judge
erred when he denied Appellant’s challenge for cause against Lieutenant
[B].
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 15
minutes to present oral argument in this case.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT Robert M. Pirone,
USCG
Counsel for Appellee: LCDR Patrick
M. Flynn, USCG
Case
Summary: SPCM conviction
of failure
to go, dereliction, larceny and dishonorable failure to pay just debts. Granted issues question: (1) whether R. C.
M. 705 (c)
(2) (D) permits pretrial misconduct to form the basis for a withdraw
from the
sentencing limitation of the pretrial agreement when
pretrial misconduct, by its very nature,
cannot fall within any period of suspension as required by R.C.M. 1109
since
there is no sentence prior to trial; and (2) whether Appellant’s pleas
were
improvident because the military judge failed to ensure that Appellant
understood the meaning and effect of the misconduct provisions in the
pretrial
agreement, and the convening authority subsequently withdrew from the
sentencing limitation portion of the pretrial agreement based on
pretrial
misconduct.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 15
minutes to present oral argument in this case.
Monday,
December 10, 2007
9:00 a.m.:
(Appellant)
(Appellee)
Counsel for Appellant: Major Donna S. Rueppell,
USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Timothy
M. Cox, USAF
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of
wrongful use of cocaine.
Issues
certified by the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force are: (1)
whether the
military judge abused her discretion in granting the defense motion for
new
trial; and (2) whether prior to authentication the military judge has
the
authority in a post-trial Article 39(a) session to set aside a
conviction and
order a new trial as a remedy for a discovery violation discovered
post-trial.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt Anthony D. Ortiz,
USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Major Matthew
S. Ward, USAF
Case Summary: GCM conviction of conspiracy to possess
cocaine with
intent to distribute, possession of cocaine
with
intent to distribute, and disclosure and offer to sell privacy
protected
information. Granted issue questions whether the addendum to the Staff
Judge
Advocate’s recommendation contains “new matter” not provided to defense
counsel
for comment, necessitating a new convening authority action in this
case.
NOTE:
Counsel for each side will be allowed 15 minutes to present oral
argument in this case.
Tuesday,
December 11, 2007
9:00 a.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: J. W. Carver, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Roger E. Mattioli,
USMC
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of
attempted premeditated murder. Granted issue
questions whether the
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming the
military
judge’s decision at trial to instruct the members on the claimed lesser
included offense of attempted manslaughter over the accused’s
objection.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Maj Richard D.
Belliss, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Tai D.
Le, USMC
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of
indecent assault, distribution of ecstasy, and distribution of
marijuana. Granted issue
raised by defense counsel questions whether
Appellant’s guilty plea to indecent assault as a principal was
improvident
where the providence inquiry does not establish that Appellant
possessed the
specific intent to gratify his lust or sexual desires.
The issue specified by the Court questions
whether Appellant’s guilty plea to distributing marijuana was provident
when
Appellant told the military judge that the substance he distributed was
not marijuana.
Wednesday,
December 12, 2007
9:00 a.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT Brian D. Korn, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: LT David H. Lee, JAGC, USN
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of making
a false official statement, use of marijuana, larceny and making a
false claim. Granted
issues are: (1) did a defense objection
of “lack of foundation” to a summary
document moved into evidence under M.R.E. 1006 either include or
preserve an
objection to the admissibility of the underlying evidence upon which
the
summary was based? and (2) was the evidence upon which the M.R.E. 1006
summary
was based admissible as an exception to hearsay and proffered by a
competent
witness?
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Maj Brian L. Jackson,
USMC
Counsel for Appellee: LT Justin E. Dunlap, JAGC, USN
Case
Summary: SPCM conviction
of use
of cocaine. Granted issue
questions whether the
lower court erred when it held that the military judge did not commit
plain
error when he permitted the trial counsel to ask hypothetical voir dire
questions that presented the members with such detailed facts about
Appellant’s
case that the trial counsel was in effect committing the members to
return a
verdict of guilty prior to the presentation of evidence, argument, and
instructions.
NOTE: Counsel for
each side will be allowed 15
minutes to present oral argument in this case.