450
E Street, Northwest
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Monday, March 12, 2007
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: Lt Col Frank R. Levi, USAFR
Counsel
for Appellee:
Case Summary: GCM conviction of
receiving child
pornography, and violating 18 U.S.C. 1462. Granted issue questions
whether the
military judge erred in admitting evidence at trial that was obtained
as a
direct result of an illegal search of Appellant’s personal computer.
Followed By:
(Appellant)
(Appellee)
Counsel
for Appellant: Capt Adam S. Kazin,
Counsel
for Appellee: Capt Frank B. Ulmer, JA, USA
Case Summary: GCM conviction of
aggravated assault with a
dangerous weapon. Granted issue questions whether the United States
Army Court
of Criminal Appeals erred when it ruled that the military judge erred
in
refusing to instruct the panel that a mutual combatant could regain the
right
to self defense when the opposing party escalates the level of
conflict, even
if Appellant does not withdraw in good faith, as required by Rule for
Courts Martial
916 (e) (4).
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: LT Brian L. Mizer, JAGC, USN
Counsel
for Appellee: Capt Roger E. Mattioli, USMC
Case Summary: GCM conviction of
conspiracy to obstruct
justice, breaking restriction, and obstruction of justice. Granted
issues
question: (I) whether the lower court erred by holding that the
military judge’s
decision to submit the issue of the lawfulness of Appellant’s
restriction order
to the members was harmless; (II) whether the evidence is legally
sufficient to
prove that Appellant conspired with John Doe to obstruct justice where
there is
no evidence in the record that John Doe ever existed; and (III) whether
Appellant was denied due process of law where the lower court decided
Appellant’s case 1,830 days after his court-martial.
Followed By:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: Capt Anthony D. Ortiz, USAF
Counsel
for Appellee: Capt Jamie L. Mendelson, USAF
Case Summary:
GCM
conviction of drunk driving, use of ecstasy, cocaine and LSD, and obstruction of justice. Original granted
issue questions whether Appellant’s substantial rights were materially
prejudiced when prosecution witnesses and trial counsel commented on
Appellant’s request for an attorney and Appellant’s refusal to give
consent for
a search and seizure of his hair and blood. Specified Issues question:
(I)
whether evidence reflecting the accused’s exercise of constitutional
rights was
admissible as part of the background sequence or chronology of events
leading
to the seizure or discovery of otherwise admissible evidence; and (II)
if
evidence of the accused’s exercise of his constitutional rights was
admissible
for purposes of establishing background sequence or chronology without
objection, was it plain error if no instruction was given advising the
members
that the evidence could not be considered as evidence of guilt or
criminal
conduct.
1:00 p.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Maj
John N. Page III, USAF
Counsel for Appellee:
Case Summary:
GCM conviction of possessing and receiving child pornography. Granted issue questions whether the military
judge erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence
seized from
Appellant’s computer where the affidavit in support of the search did
not
contain any description of the substance of the images suspected to
depict
“sexually explicit conduct.”
NOTE: This
case will be heard at the University of Pittsburgh
School of
Law,
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Seth A.
Director,
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Philip M. Staten,
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of indecent liberties with a child and indecent acts with a child.
Granted
issues question: (I) whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred
when it
held that evidence of Appellant’s guilt was so great as to make
admission of
K.G.’s videotaped testimony harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (II)
whether
the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it held that the
testimony of
V.S. [Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner] was not testimonial hearsay
requiring that
the declarant be subject to cross-examination as required by the Sixth
Amendment
to the United States Constitution; (III) whether the Army Court of
Criminal
Appeals erred in finding that the CID agent’s failure to advise
Appellant of
his Article 31 (b) rights on 3 January 2002 did not constitute legal
error.
NOTE: This case will be heard at
the Duquesne
University School of Law,