YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > 2006 TERM > FEBRUARY 2006

United States Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces
450 E Street, Northwest Washington D.C. 20442-0001

---

Tuesday, February 7, 2006

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Kirk A. Moss	No. 05-0545/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Anthony D. Ortiz, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Jin-Hwa L. Frazier, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of carnal knowledge, indecent acts upon a female under the age of 16, and sodomy with a child under the age of 16. Granted issue questions whether Appellant was denied meaningful cross-examination of Government witnesses in violation of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the military judge repeatedly prevented trial defense counsel from confronting the alleged victim and other witnesses with impeachment evidence admissible under Mil. R. Evid. 608.

10:00 a.m.

United States v.	Joshua P. Lovett	No. 03-0072/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Karen L. Hecker, USAFR
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Michelle M. Lindo McCluer, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape, solicitation, and wrongful possession of percocet. Issue specified by the Court questions whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in finding that “some of the Appellant’s sexual acts with MM occurred after 18 November 1997” where the members rendered a general verdict. See United States v. Walters, 58 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F. 2003).

1:00 p.m.

United States v.	Ivor G. Luke	No. 05-0157/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Peter H. Griesch, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Wilbur Lee, USMC

Case Summary: GCM conviction of indecent assault. Supplemental issue to be reviewed by the Court questions whether Appellant’s conviction can be affirmed in light of the fact that evidence of fraudulent testing of DNA has been newly discovered.

2:00 p.m.

United States v.	Michael J. Adams	No. 05-0420/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Gregory L. Chaney, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: LT TyQuili R. Booker, JAGC, USNR

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of unauthorized absence, failing to go to his appointed place of duty, and willful disobedience of an order. Granted issue questions whether the lower court erred when it affirmed a conviction for failing to go to an appointed place of duty despite the Appellant’s lack of actual knowledge of the place of appointed duty.

Each side is allotted 15 minutes to present oral argument.

---

Wednesday, February 8, 2006

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Samuel D. Zachary	No. 06-5001/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Natalie A. Kolb, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Eric D. Noble, JA, USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of indecent acts with a child. The issue certified for review by the Judge Advocate General of the Army questions whether the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it found that the mistake of fact defense was available to the Appellee against a charge of indecent acts with a child, which is contrary to the holding in United States v. Strode, 43 M.J. 29 (C.A.A.F. 1995).

10:00 a.m.

United States v.	Jeffrey M. Miller	No. 06-5002/CG
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: CDR Jeffrey C. Good, USCG
Counsel for Appellee: LCDR Nancy J. Truax, USCG

Case Summary: SPCM conviction for the wrongful use, introduction, and distribution of marijuana and ecstacy, and the wrongful solicitation of another to distribute ecstacy. Appellee signed a waiver of appellate review prior to action by the convening authority. The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard referred the case to the U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals for review under Article 69, UCMJ. After concluding that the waiver of appellate review was invalid, the Court of Criminal Appeals decided to consider the case en banc under Article 66, UCMJ. The Court then granted Appellee’s motion to withdraw from appellate review. The Judge Advocate General has certified the following issues for review: (I) Did the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, after concluding that Appellee’s waiver of appellate review was invalid, err by conducting a sua sponte review under Article 66(b), where the Judge Advocate General certified the case to the court pursuant to Article 69, UCMJ? (II) Did the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals err by concluding that R.C.M. 1110(f), which expressly permits an accused to sign a waiver of appellate review “any time after the sentence is announced,” is contrary to Article 61, UCMJ? and (III) To the extent Article 61, UCMJ is ambiguous, and given that Congress has expressly granted the President rule-making authority in the field of military justice, must and Article I court defer to the President’s reasonable interpretation of that Article?

1:00 p.m.

United States v.	Charles W. Davis	No. 06-6001/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Richard A. Viczorek, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: LT Steven M. Crass, JAGC, USNR

Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape, forcible sodomy and indecent acts and liberties with a child. Appellant, a lieutenant commander, was sentenced to confinement for life and partial forfeiture of pay for 24 months. A dismissal was not adjudged. Two years after trial, Appellant was administratively discharged from the Navy. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Armed Forces, the Court affirmed the findings but set aside the sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Davis, 60 M.J. 469 (C.A.A.F. 2005). At the sentence rehearing, the military judge granted a defense motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Government appealed under Article 62, UCMJ, to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and that court granted the Government’s appeal. On Appellant’s petition, review was granted on the following issues: (I) whether the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously interpreted Article 62, UCMJ, to allow a Government appeal of an order from a court-martial in which no punitive discharge could have been adjudged; and (II) weather the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erred by concluding that the doctrine of continuing jurisdiction applies to trial level courts-martial.

---

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

1:30 p.m.

United States v.	Jennifer N. Long	No. 05-5002/MC
(Appellant/Cross-Appellee)	(Appellee/Cross-Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Maj Kevin C. Harris, USMC
Counsel for Appellee/Cross-Appellant: Charles Gittins, Esquire

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of using ecstasy, ketamine, and marijuana. Certified issues question: (I) whether the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it determined that, based on the evidence adduced at trial, Appellee held a subjective expectation of privacy in her e-mail account as to all others but the network administrator; and (II) whether the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it determined that it was reasonable, under the circumstances presented in this case, for an authorized user of the Government computer network to have a limited expectation of privacy in e-mail communications sent and received via the Government network server. And the following issue granted by the Court questions whether the lower court erred in finding that the military judge’s error in admitting e-mails sent and received by Lance Corporal Long on her Government computer was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

NOTE: This case will be heard at Barry University Law School, Orlando, Florida, as part of the Court’s “Project Outreach” Program.

---

Thursday, February 23, 2006

(Time TBD)

United States v.	Reginold D. Allison	No. 05-0235/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: LCDR Jason S. Grover, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: LT Mark H. Herrington, JAGC, USNR

Case Summary: GCM conviction of fleeing apprehension, rape, assault consummated by a battery, and burglary. Granted issues question: (I) whether the Government’s two DNA experts were wholly qualified as experts in forensic DNA analysis, to include expertise in the frequency of occurrences for particular DNA samples; and (II) whether Appellant’s due process rights were violated when it took more than five years for the Article 66 review by the court below to be completed.

NOTE: This case will be heard at the Florida A & M University College of Law, Orlando, Florida, as part of the Court’s “Project Outreach” Program.