450 E Street,
Northwest
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
(Appellant) (Appellee)
Counsel
for Appellant: Maj Brian Keller , USMC
Counsel
for Appellee: Capt Sridhar Kaza, USMC
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of carnal knowledge and indecent acts. Certified issue questions
whether the Navy – Marine Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously held that the military judge
abused his
discretion by finding the 13-year old witness unavailable on the basis
of
mental illness or infirmity, and thus that the military judge had
erroneously admitted the witness’
videotaped deposition.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: Capt Scott T. Ayers,
Counsel
for Appellee: Capt Michael Friess,
Case Summary: GCM
conviction of attempted
marijuana distribution, conspiracy, possession of marijuana with intent
to
distribute, and distribution of marijuana.
Granted issues question: (I)
whether the evidence is legally sufficient to prove Charge III,
Specification 2
(distribute marijuana); (II) whether Specification 1 of Charge III
(possession
with intent to distribute marijuana on or about 22 January 2001) is a
lesser-included offense of Specification of Charge III (distribution of
marijuana on or about 22 January 2001); and (III) whether the dilatory
post-trial and Appellate processing warrants relief.
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: Mary T. Hall, Esquire
Counsel
for Appellee:
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of rape of a child and indecent acts with a child. Granted issues
question: (I)
whether the military judge erred in admitting evidence of alleged
sexual
molestation acts by Appellant involving [S. C.] and [J. R.] and failed
to adequately
instruct the panel on how to use such evidence; and (II) whether the
trial
counsel improperly engaged in inflammatory, irrelevant, and prejudicial
comments during argument by urging the members during the merits and
sentencing
to render justice not only for the alleged victims of the charged
offenses but
for an alleged victim of uncharged misconduct as well.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: William E.
Cassara, Esquire
Counsel for Appellee: Lt Col Robert
V. Combs, USAF
Case Summary:
GCM conviction of indecent liberties and indecent acts with a child.
Granted issue questions whether the Air Force Court of Criminal
Appeals
failed to conduct a proper review under Article 66 (c), UCMJ, because
the Court
considered evidence outside the record in conducting its factual and
legal
sufficiency reviews.
1:00 p.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT Anthony
Yim, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: Major Brian K.
Keller, USMC
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of larceny and conspiracy. Granted issues question: (I) whether the
lower court
erred when it held that Appellant did not have standing in order to
challenge
the Government’s search; (II) whether the military judge erred when he
concluded that the Government would have “inevitably discovered”
Appellant’s
confession.
NOTE: This
case will be heard at Southern University Law Center,
10:00 a.m.
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT W.
Scott Stoebner, USN
Counsel for
Appellee: LT Mark H.
Herrington, JAGC,
USNR
Case Summary: SPCM conviction of larceny, forgery and AWOL. Granted issue questions whether the lower
court erred when it determined that the military judge did not abuse
his
discretion when he excluded substantial testimony of Mr. [M] regarding
[D. M. ‘s]
motives toward Appellant, Appellant’s fear of [D. M.] and the fact that
[D. M.]
owned a gun. The following issue is specified by the Court: whether
Appellant’s
due process rights to a timely review were violated.
1:00 p.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: Capt Christopher L. Ferretti, USAF
Counsel
for Appellee: Capt Daniel J. Breen, USAF
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of unpremeditated murder by shaking and throwing six-month old
daughter, AWOL, stealing
insurance proceeds, making false claims, failure to go, wrongfully
obtaining
telephone services, false official statement, dishonorable failure to
pay debt,
and falsely signing an official record. Granted issues question: (I)
whether
the military judge erred by preventing the defense from impeaching the
testimony of the deceased baby’s father – the only other person present
at the
time of the alleged shaking incident – with prior inconsistent
statements
regarding the baby’s interactions with Appellant and the baby’s crying
after
Appellant left the house; (II) whether Appellant’s due process rights
were
violated when it took over four years for the Article 66 review by the
court
below to be completed; (III) whether the
military judge erred by denying a defense motion in limine to exclude
the
testimony of various witnesses regarding Appellant’s pattern of minor
parental
abuse where the testimony constituted inappropriate character evidence
that was
unfairly prejudicial; (IV) whether the military judge erred by allowing
the
prosecution’s expert witness to present inadmissible profile evidence
that
placed Appellant in the profiled category and excluded the deceased
baby’s
father – the only other suspect – from the profiled category. Specified
issues
question: (V) whether Appellant’s guilty pleas to Charge II and its
specification [larceny] were provident; (VI) whether the Air Force
Court of
Criminal Appeals properly reassessed the sentence when it included a
reduction
in pay grade that was not adjudged (or authorized).
NOTE: This case will be heard at
the Mississippi
College School of Law,
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: Capt John S. Fredland, USAF
Counsel
for Appellee:
Case Summary: GCM
conviction of AWOL, dereliction of duty, and seven specifications of
indecent
assault. Granted issue questions whether Appellant’s pleas of guilty to
assaults
consummated by battery were improvident because evidence adduced during
his
providence inquiry indicated that he obtained consent from the alleged
victims
due to fraud in the inducement, rather than fraud in the factum where
he
performed gynecological examinations upon females when he was not
trained or
licensed to perform such examinations.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: Capt Griffin
Counsel
for Appellee:
Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape of a child, sodomy of a child, indecent acts with a child, indecent liberties with a child, communicating indecent language to a child, subornation of perjury and violation of a no-contact order. Granted issue questions whether the trial counsel committed plain error during his sentencing argument by comparing Appellant to Osama Bin Laden and Adolph Hitler and by appealing to potential religious biases of the military judge by comparing Appellant to the devil and arguing that Appellant is going to hell.
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: Major John N. Page III, USAF
Counsel
for Appellee:
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of sodomy with a child under 12, indecent acts with a child, and
indecent
liberties with a child. Granted issue questions whether, in light of United
States v. Berry, 61 M.J. 91 (C. A. A. F. 2005) and United
States v.
McDonald, 59 M.J. 426 (C. A. A. F. 2004), evidence of uncharged
sexual acts
between Appellant, when he was an adolescent, and his sister was
improperly
admitted and materially prejudiced Appellant.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: Capt Vicki A. Belleau, USAF
Counsel
for Appellee:
Case
Summary: GCM conviction of
wrongful Possession of Air Force Police credentials, dereliction of
duty,
failure to inform guard of, and secure weapons, misuse of a government computer, and making a false
claim. Granted issues question: (I) whether the military judge erred in
finding
there was a “de facto dismissal” of the charges against Appellant on 6
November
2001 that was done for a legitimate
reason; (II) whether the military judge erred in finding that Appellant
was not
denied the right to a speedy trial under Article 10, UCMJ; (III)
whether
Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial
defense
counsel did not inform him that an unconditional guilty plea waived the
speedy
trial issue under R.C.M. 707; and (IV) whether Appellant’s plea was
improvident
where it was entered upon the mistaken belief that his R.C.M. 707
speedy trial
issue would be preserved for appeal.