450 E Street,
Northwest
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Monday,
November 5, 2007
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Vicki A. Belleau, USAF
Counsel for
Appellee:
Case Summary: GCM conviction of assault and making a false
official statement. Granted issues question: (1)
whether the military judge erred in failing to suppress Appellant’s
confession
where the confession was not freely and voluntarily given; (2) whether
the
military judge abused his discretion by denying the defense request for
the
appointment of a forensically-qualified expert consultant; and (3)
whether the
military judge erred by admitting evidence of uncharged misconduct and
bad
character in violation of military rule of evidence 404(b).
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Anthony D. Ortiz, USAF
Counsel for
Appellee: Maj Matthew S. Ward,
USAF
Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape and assault. Granted issue
questions whether the military
judge erred in admitting RC’s statements to the registered nurse and
social
worker as medical exceptions to hearsay.
NOTE:
Counsel for each side will
be allowed 15 minutes to present oral argument in this case.
Tuesday,
November 6, 2007
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Maj
Fansu Ku,
Counsel for Appellee: Capt
Larry W. Downend,
Case
Summary: GCM
conviction of making a false official statement, larceny, and making a
false claim.
Granted issue questions whether
the military judge erred in his findings of fact or conclusions of law
regarding unlawful command influence.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Maj
Jeffrey S. Stephens, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: Capt James W.
Weirick, USMC
Case Summary: GCM conviction of AWOL, possession of drug
paraphernalia, cocaine and heroin, use of methamphetamine and cocaine,
manufacturing methamphetamine, and escaping custody.
Granted issue questions whether the lower court
erred by finding that two Virginia state forensic laboratory reports
were not
testimonial hearsay under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36
(2004).
9:00 a.m.
(Appellee) (Appellant)
Counsel for
Appellant: Capt Nathan J. Bankson, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt James P. Leary,
Case Summary: GCM conviction of making a false official
statement,
indecent acts with a child and indecent liberties with a child. In a post-trial Article 39(a) session, the
military judge ruled that the statute of limitations barred the
convictions for
indecent acts and liberties with a child because a 2003 congressional
amendment
did not apply retroactively to offenses committed before the date of
the
amendment. In an appeal under Article
62, UCMJ, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial judge
erred. The granted issue questions
whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that the
November
2003 congressional amendment to Article 43(b) of the UCMJ applies
retroactively
to offenses committed before the effective date of the amendment that
were not
time-barred as of that date, but that were time-barred under the
previous
statute of limitations when received by the officer exercising summary
court-martial jurisdiction. The Court also specified the issue of whether and how this Court has statutory
authority to exercise jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals under
either
Article 67(a) (2) or (3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (a) (2), (3) (2000),
from
decisions of the Courts of Criminal Appeals under Article 62, UCMJ, 10
U.S.C. §
862 (2000), and whether, as a matter of law, this Court’s decision in United
States v. Tucker, 20 M.J. 52, 53 (C.M.A. 1985), should be
overturned.
Followed
by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant:
Lance B. Sigmon, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: LCDR Paul D. Bunge,
JAGC, USN
Case Summary: After arraignment of Appellant at a general
court-martial on charges of receiving and possessing child pornography,
the
military judge granted a defense motion to suppress the contents of
Appellant’s
personal computer. In an appeal under
Article 62, UCMJ, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the military
judge
abused his discretion in granting the motion.
The granted issue questions
whether the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously
limited
this Court’s holding in United States v. Conklin, 63 M.J. 333
(C.A.A.F.
2006), by finding that “it appears the military judge applied an
erroneous
standard of reasonableness” in suppressing the search of Appellant’s
laptop
computer. The Court also specified the
issue of whether and how this Court has
statutory authority to exercise jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals
under
either Article 67(a) (2) or (3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (a) (2), (3)
(2000),
from decisions of the Courts of Criminal Appeals under Article 62,
UCMJ, 10
U.S.C. § 862 (2000), and whether, as a matter of law, this Court’s
decision in United
States v. Tucker, 20 M.J. 52, 53 (C.M.A. 1985), should be
overturned.
Tuesday,
November 27, 2007
9:00 a.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Timothy M. Cox, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt
Jamie L. Mendelson, USAF
Case
Summary: GCM conviction of attempted carnal knowledge,
attempted indecent acts, misuse
of a government computer, indecent language, and using a facility to
entice a
minor to engage in sexual activity.
Granted issues are: whether the AFCCA erred in holding that
Appellant
had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his government computer
despite the
Court’s holding in United States v. Long, 64 M.J. 57 (C.A.A.F.
2006);
and whether Appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel
when
civilian counsel conceded Appellant’s guilt in his opening statement,
during
findings, and again in closing argument.
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Maj Leonard W. Jones,
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Dana E.
Leavitt,
Case Summary: GCM conviction of larceny, and making a
false
official statement. Granted issue
questions whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in finding
Appellant’s plea of guilty to the specification of Charge I and to
Charge I,
false official statement, provident when the statement in question was
not, in
fact, false.
NOTE:
Counsel for each side will
be allowed 15 minutes to present oral argument in this case.