450
E Street, Northwest
SCHEDULED
HEARINGS
______________________________________________________________
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Anthony D. Ortiz, USAF
Counsel for
Appellee: Capt Jin-Hwa L.
Frazier,
USAF
Case Summary: GCM conviction
of carnal knowledge, indecent
acts upon a female under the age of 16, and sodomy with a child under
the age
of 16.
Granted issue questions whether Appellant was
denied meaningful cross-examination of Government witnesses in
violation of his
Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the military judge
repeatedly
prevented trial defense counsel from confronting the alleged victim and
other
witnesses with impeachment evidence admissible under Mil. R. Evid. 608.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for
Appellant: Maj Karen L. Hecker, USAFR
Counsel for Appellee: Maj
Michelle M. Lindo McCluer, USAF
Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape, solicitation, and
wrongful possession of percocet. Issue specified
by the Court questions
whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in finding that “some of the Appellant’s sexual
acts with MM occurred after
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for
Appellant: Capt Peter H. Griesch,
USMC
Counsel for Appellee:
Maj Wilbur Lee, USMC
Case Summary: GCM conviction of indecent assault. Supplemental
issue to be reviewed by the Court questions whether Appellant’s
conviction can be
affirmed in light of the fact that evidence of fraudulent testing of
DNA has
been newly discovered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for
Appellant: Maj Gregory L. Chaney,
USMC
Counsel for
Appellee: LT TyQuili R.
Booker, JAGC,
USNR
Case
Summary: SPCM
conviction of unauthorized absence, failing
to go to his appointed place of duty, and willful disobedience of an
order. Granted issue questions whether
the lower court erred when it affirmed a conviction for failing to go
to an
appointed place of duty despite the Appellant’s lack of actual
knowledge of the
place of appointed duty.
Each side is allotted 15 minutes to
present oral argument.
(Appellant)
(Appellee)
Counsel for
Appellant: Maj Natalie A. Kolb,
Counsel for
Appellee: Capt Eric D. Noble,
Case Summary: GCM conviction of indecent acts with a
child.
The issue certified for review by the Judge
Advocate General of the Army questions whether the United States Army
Court of
Criminal Appeals erred when it found that the mistake of fact defense
was
available to the Appellee against a charge of indecent acts with a
child, which
is contrary to the holding in United States v. Strode, 43 M.J.
29 (C.A.A.F.
1995).
(Appellant)
(Appellee)
Counsel for
Appellant: CDR Jeffrey C. Good, USCG
Counsel for
Appellee: LCDR Nancy J. Truax, USCG
Case
Summary: SPCM
conviction for the wrongful use, introduction, and distribution of
marijuana
and ecstacy, and the wrongful solicitation of another to distribute
ecstacy.
Appellee signed a waiver of appellate review
prior to action by the convening authority.
The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard referred the case
to the
U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals for review under Article 69,
UCMJ. After concluding that the waiver
of appellate review was invalid, the Court of Criminal Appeals decided
to
consider the case en banc under
Article 66, UCMJ. The Court then granted
Appellee’s motion to withdraw from appellate review.
The Judge Advocate General has certified the
following issues for review: (I) Did the
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, after concluding that Appellee’s
waiver
of appellate review was invalid, err by conducting a sua sponte review
under
Article 66(b), where the Judge Advocate General certified the case to
the court
pursuant to Article 69, UCMJ? (II) Did
the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals err by concluding that R.C.M.
1110(f), which expressly permits an accused to sign a waiver of
appellate review
“any time after the sentence is announced,” is contrary to Article 61,
UCMJ?
and (III) To the extent Article 61, UCMJ is ambiguous, and given that
Congress
has expressly granted the President rule-making authority in the field
of
military justice, must and Article I court defer to the President’s
reasonable
interpretation of that Article?
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for
Appellant: Capt Richard A. Viczorek,
USMC
Counsel for
Appellee: LT Steven M. Crass,
JAGC,
USNR
Case
Summary: GCM
conviction of rape,
forcible sodomy and indecent acts and liberties with a child.
Appellant, a lieutenant commander, was
sentenced to confinement for life and partial forfeiture of pay for 24
months. A dismissal was not adjudged. Two years after trial, Appellant was
administratively discharged from the Navy.
On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Armed Forces, the
Court
affirmed the findings but set aside the sentence due to ineffective
assistance
of counsel.
(Appellant/Cross-Appellee) (Appellee/Cross-Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Maj
Kevin C. Harris, USMC
Counsel for Appellee/Cross-Appellant:
Charles Gittins, Esquire
Case Summary: SPCM
conviction of using ecstasy, ketamine, and marijuana. Certified
issues question: (I) whether the United
States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it
determined
that, based on the evidence adduced at trial, Appellee held a
subjective
expectation of privacy in her e-mail account as to all others but the
network
administrator; and (II) whether the United States Navy-Marine Corps
Court of
Criminal Appeals erred when it determined that it was reasonable, under
the
circumstances presented in this case, for an authorized user of the
Government
computer network to have a limited expectation of privacy in e-mail
communications sent and received via the Government network server. And the following issue granted by the Court
questions whether the lower court erred in finding that the military
judge’s
error in admitting e-mails sent and received by Lance Corporal Long on
her
Government computer was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
NOTE:
This case will
be heard at
(Time TBD):
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LCDR
Jason S. Grover, JAGC, USN
Counsel for
Appellee: LT Mark H.
Herrington, JAGC,
USNR
Case
Summary: GCM conviction of fleeing
apprehension, rape, assault consummated by
a battery,
and burglary. Granted
issues question: (I) whether the
Government’s
two DNA experts were wholly qualified as experts in forensic DNA
analysis, to
include expertise in the frequency of occurrences for particular DNA
samples;
and (II) whether Appellant’s due process rights were violated when it
took more
than five years for the Article 66 review by the court below to be
completed.
NOTE: This case
will be heard at the Florida A & M
University
College of Law,