450
E Street, Northwest
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Christopher S. Morgan, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Maj
Jin-Hwa Lee Frazier, USAF
Case Summary: SPCM conviction of using marijuana and
psilocybin, distributing marijuana, and introducing psilocybin onto an
installation.
Granted issue questions whether
Appellant’s guilty plea to Specification 4 of the Charge was
improvident where,
during the providence inquiry, Appellant did not personally admit to
aiding or
abetting another airman in the commission of the offense charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Todd N. George,
Counsel for Appellee: Capt
Edward E. Wiggers,
Case Summary: SPCM conviction of mailing, possessing,
receiving,
and reproducing child pornography for distribution. Granted issues
question: (I) whether the Army Court of
Criminal
Appeals erred in summarily affirming Appellant’s conviction under The
Child
Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) 18 U.S.C. § 2251 et seq. (2000)
despite the
presentation of unconstitutionally overbroad instructions to the panel
that, when
coupled with the evidence in the record, permitted the panel to convict
Appellant on both a constitutional and unconstitutional basis; and (II)
whether
Appellant’s conviction under the CPPA is not supported by legally
sufficient
evidence where no evidence was introduced at trial that the depictions
were, in
fact, produced by using real children as required by United States
v.
O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Charles A. Kuhfahl, Jr.,
Counsel for Appellee: Capt
Mark D. McMann,
Case Summary: GCM
conviction of conspiracy, willfully
suffering the sale of military property, and housebreaking. Granted issue
questions whether the military
judge erred in accepting Appellant’s plea of guilty to willfully
suffering the
sale of military property (Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge II) where
there was
no evidence adduced during the providence inquiry that Appellant had
any
independent duty to safeguard the military property in question.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 15
minutes to present oral argument in this case.
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Maj
Andrew S. Williams, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Maj
Jin-Hwa Lee Frazier, USAF
Case Summary: GCM
conviction of indecent acts with
a child and possessing child
pornography. Granted issues
question: (I)
whether the military judge erred in failing to suppress
Appellant’s
statements to the family advocacy provider where those statements were
made in
response to questions posed without an Article 31, Uniform Code of
Military
Justice, rights advisement; (II) if so, whether the military judge
erred in
failing to suppress all evidence derived from Appellant’s statement to
the
family advocacy provider because AFOSI did not give Appellant a
cleansing
warning prior to its interrogation of Appellant; and (III) did the
prosecution
present legally sufficient evidence that Appellant’s possession of
visual
depictions of nude minors was service-discrediting or prejudicial to
good order
and discipline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Christopher S. Morgan, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Maj
Steven R. Kaufman, USAFR
Case Summary: GCM conviction of using and possessing
cocaine.
Granted issue questions whether Appellant
should have been awarded additional confinement credit for
noncompliance with
R.C.M. 305, pursuant to United States v. Rendon, 58 M.J. 221
(C.A.A.F.
2003).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT
Jason S. Grover, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: Maj
Kevin C. Harris, USMC
Case Summary: SPCM conviction of using
amphetamine/methamphetamine and marijuana.
Granted issue questions whether the lower court erred in finding
that
Appellant waived his right to submit clemency matters in his second
post-trial
review process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT
Brian L. Mizer, JAGC, USNR
Counsel for Appellee: Maj
Raymond E. Beal, II, USMC
Case Summary: GCM conviction
of conspiracy, selling military property, larceny, transporting stolen
property, and disposing of stolen property. Granted issue
questions whether Appellant suffered illegal pretrial confinement in
violation
of Article 13, Uniform Code of Military Justice, when he was confined
at the
Base Brig, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, under
conditions
more rigorous than those required to ensure his presence at trial
between his
arrest on 16 October 1997 and his sentencing hearing on 10 June 1998.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 15
minutes to present oral argument in this case.
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Maj
Andrew S. Williams, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Maj
Michelle M. Lindo McCluer, USAF
Case Summary: SPCM
conviction of using
cocaine.
Granted issue questions whether a
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT
Stephen C. Reyes, JAGC, USNR
Counsel for Appellee: LT
Kathleen A. Helmann, JAGC, USNR
Case Summary: GCM
conviction of rape. Granted issue questions whether the lower
appellate court erred in concluding that defense counsel’s erroneous
request to
suspend forfeitures and the Staff Judge Advocate’s erroneous advice
recommending such action did not prejudice Appellant when he was not
entitled
to pay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Anthony D. Ortiz, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Maj
Matthew Ward, USAF
Case Summary: GCM
conviction of possessing
child pornography. Granted issues question: (I)
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; and (II) whether the evidence presented by the prosecution at
trial
was legally insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for
possessing child
pornography.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Christopher S. Morgan, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt
Michelle D. Lindo McCluer, USAF
Case Summary: GCM conviction
of enticing a minor to engage in child pornography, receiving and possessing
child pornography, indecent acts
with a
child, and indecent liberties with a child. Granted issues
question: (I) whether Appellant’s
admission that his possession of “child pornography” was service
discrediting
was knowing and voluntary in light of the fact that he was provided an
unconstitutionally overbroad definition of “child pornography”; (II)
whether
the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction
for taking
indecent liberties with [CMR] and [LNR] and for having them engage in
sexually
explicit conduct for the purpose of creating a visual depiction of it;
and
(III) whether Appellant’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)
by using
a camera shipped in interstate commerce to produce sexually explicit
photographs of [CMR], [LNR] and [SKA] should be dismissed in light of
his
convictions for committing indecent liberties with [CMR], [LNR] and
[SKA] for
taking the identical photographs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
John N. Page, III, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt
Lane A. Thurgood, USAFR
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
of attempting to engage a recruit into an unprofessional relationship,
sexual
harassment, maltreatment of a subordinate,
and simple
assault. Granted issues question: (I) whether the evidence was legally
sufficient to convict Appellant of Specifications 2, 3, and 4 of Charge
I
(violation of a directive prohibiting sexual harassment) beyond a
reasonable
doubt; (II) whether Air Education and Training Instruction 36-2002,
Para.
1.1.2.2.5 (prohibiting inappropriate conduct and unprofessional
relationships)
both facially and as applied to Appellant violates due process and is
unconstitutionally void for vagueness; and (III) whether the military
judge
erred when she admitted, over defense objection, a prosecution exhibit
offered
as sentencing aggravation evidence that argued Air Force core values
and
endorsed “harsh adverse action” for those who committed Appellant’s
offenses.