450
E Street, Northwest
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Monday,
October 1, 2007
9:00 a.m.:
Jacob Denedo v.
(Appellant)
(Appellee)
Counsel for Appellant: Matthew
S. Freedus, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: LCDR
Paul D. Bunge, JAGC, USN
Case
Summary: 1998 SPCM conviction for conspiracy to commit
larceny,
and larceny. Court of
Criminal
Appeals denied Appellant’s petition for extraordinary relief in the
nature of
writ of error coram nobis. Appellant’s
writ-appeal
raises the issue of whether his guilty plea was involuntary due to
constitutionally
ineffective assistance of counsel and affirmative misrepresentations
regarding
the deportation consequences of his plea.
Oral argument will focus on whether the Court has jurisdiction
over this
writ-appeal petition, and if so, whether the Court is in a position to
address
the merits of the appeal without further fact-finding.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Maj
Teresa L. Raymond,
Counsel for Appellee: Capt
Adam S. Kazin,
Case
Summary:
GCM conviction for possession and
transportation of child pornography, coercing a minor to produce child
pornography, indecent acts with a minor, and disobedience. Army Criminal
Court of Appeals amended the
findings of child pornography specifications from Clause 3 violations
of
Article 134, UCMJ, to Clause 2 violations under
Tuesday,
October 2, 2007
9:00 a.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Richard P. Pizur,
Counsel for Appellee: Capt
Mark E. Goodson,
Case
Summary: GCM conviction for sodomy and
indecent acts with a child. Granted
issue is whether the Army CCA properly exercised its fact-finding power
under
Article 66, UCMJ, in resolving the question of whether the Government
violated
a material term of Appellant’s pretrial agreement despite conflicting
affidavits.
NOTE: Counsel for
each side will be allowed 15
minutes to present oral argument in this case.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Frank
J. Spinner, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: Capt
Case
Summary:
GCM conviction of indecent assault, violation of orders and adultery. Granted issue
is whether the military judge
erred by instructing the members that they could convict Appellant of
indecent
assault, a lesser included offense of rape, without voting on each of
the three
separate factual scenarios, which constituted duplicitous pleading.
NOTE: Counsel for
each side will be allowed 15
minutes to present oral argument in this case.
Monday,
October 15, 2007
9:00 a.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Timothy M. Cox, USAF
Counsel for Appellee:
Case Summary: SPCM
conviction for conspiracy, drunk
driving, solicitation to obstruct justice and obstructing justice. Granted issue is whether the military judge
committed prejudicial error by denying the defense motion to suppress
and holding
that Appellant’s statements to his wife did not fall within the marital
communications privilege.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: Maj
Richard D. Bellis, USMC
Counsel
for Appellee: LT David H. Lee, JAGC, USN
Case Summary: SPCM conviction for making and uttering bad
checks and stealing mail
matter.
Granted issue is as follows: where the Courts
of Criminal Appeals are split on whether the Wallace-Allberry
gambler’s
defense applies to worthless check offenses, did the lower court err
when it
held that the defense applies only to offenses under Article 134, UCMJ,
but not
under Article 123a, UCMJ. The specified
issue is whether the military judge erred in accepting Appellant’s
guilty pleas
to violating Article 123a, UCMJ without resolving whether Appellant had
a
partial mental responsibility defense as a result of his diagnosis as a
pathological gambler.
Tuesday,
October 16, 2007
9:00 a.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT
Anthony Yim, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: Major
Brian K. Keller, USMC
Case Summary: GCM conviction
for indecent acts and sodomy
with a child.
Granted issue is whether MRE
317 (a) incorporates state statutes when determining an unlawful
interception
of an oral or wire communication.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: LT W. S. Stoebner, JAGC, USN
Counsel
for Appellee: LCDR Jordan A. Thomas, JAGC, USN
Case Summary: GCM conviction for making a false official
statement and larceny. Granted issue is whether the admission of two
out-of-court statements from Appellant’s mother and wife, who accused
Appellant
of entering into a fraudulent marriage, is harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt
where Appellant was convicted of fraudulently collecting Basic
Allowance for Housing
by entering into a fraudulent marriage.
Specified issue is whether Appellant was denied speedy review.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 15
minutes to present oral argument in this case.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel
for Appellant: LT Kathleen L. Kadlec, JAGC, USN
Counsel
for Appellee: LT Justin E. Dunlap, JAGC, USN
Case Summary: SPCM conviction for conspiracy and using
marijuana.
The specified issue is: in view of
the principle that a military
judge is presumed to know and apply the law correctly, in a case in
which the
military judge sitting alone, evaluated the Appellant’s credibility
based upon
two specifications later dismissed on appeal, did that dismissal create
improper spillover in the
judge’s credibility determinations regarding the
Appellant’s
testimony as to the remaining offenses?
NOTE: Counsel for
each side will be allowed 15
minutes to present oral argument in this case.
Wednesday,
October 17, 2007
9:00 a.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt
Sean F. Mangan,
Counsel for Appellee: Capt
Jaired D. Stallard,
Case Summary: GCM conviction
for violating a no-contact order. The specified
issue is whether the action of
the military judge in disqualifying civilian defense counsel for
violating the
Ethics in Government Act deprived Appellant of his right to counsel of
his
choice.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: Capt Vicki A. Belleau,
USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Major Matthew S. Ward,
USAF
Case
Summary: GCM conviction of
carnal
knowledge, sodomy of a child, and possession of child pornography. Granted issue
questions whether the military judge erred in failing to grant the
defense
motion to suppress the results of the search of Appellant’s personal
computer
in light of Appellant’s revocation of consent, his subsequent
acquiescence to
pressure by law enforcement, and the inapplicability of the inevitable
discovery doctrine to the facts. See
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 15
minutes to present oral argument in this case.
Followed by:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant:
Capt Frank B. Ulmer,
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Adam S. Kazin,
Case
Summary:
SPCM conviction of sodomy with a child, carnal knowledge, disobedience,
and
failure to go. This case
was previously argued on
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 15
minutes to present oral argument in this case.
Wednesday,
October 24, 2007
1:30 p.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant:
Counsel for Appellee: LT Derek D. Butler, JAGC, USN
Case
Summary: GCM conviction of
rape.
Granted issues
concern whether Naval Criminal Investigative Service and Veterans
Affairs
personnel violated Appellant’s 4th Amendment rights by
seizing his
blood without a warrant or probable cause, and if so, whether the Court
of
Criminal Appeals erred in failing to address or suppress blood/DNA
evidence
gained by a search warrant issued on tainted evidence and material
misrepresentations.
NOTE: This case will
be heard as part of the Court’s “Project Outreach” program at Indiana
University School of
Law-Indianapolis, Indiana.
Thursday,
October 25, 2007
12:00 p.m.:
(Appellee)
(Appellant)
Counsel for Appellant: LT Kathleen L. Kadlec, JAGC,
USN
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Roger E. Mattioli,
USMC
Case
Summary: GCM conviction
for
indecent acts with a minor. Granted issue is whether Appellant was denied
his right to confrontation in light of Crawford v. Washington
when the
military judge permitted the alleged victim to testify from a remote
location
via one-way closed circuit television.
NOTE: This case will be heard as
part of the Court’s “Project Outreach” program at
Indiana University School of
Law-Bloomington, Indiana