YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > SEPTEMBER 2011 TERM > April 2012

 


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



Tuesday, April 3, 2012

3:00 p.m.

United States v.

Brandon T. Rose No. 09-5003/AF
(Appellant) (Appellee) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Lt Col Linell A. Letendre, USAF (brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Dwight H. Sullivan, Esq. (brief)

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Cherlyn Walden, Danielle Purcell, and Brooks Holland

Case Summary:  GCM conviction of disobeying an order, indecent assault, larceny, housebreaking, forgery, indecent assault, obstruction of justice, drunk driving and attempted larceny. Certified issue questions whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred in finding ineffective assistance of counsel in this case regarding Appellee's obligation to register as a sex offender. The granted issue is whether an Article 134 clause 1 or 2 specification that fails to expressly allege either potential terminal element states an offense under the Supreme Court's holdings in United States v. Resendiz-Ponce and Russell v. United States, and this Court's opinion in United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011). Oral argument will be on the certified issue only.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument. This case will be heard at the Gonzaga University School of Law, Spokane, Washington.



Thursday, April 5, 2012

3:30 p.m.

United States v.

Alaa Mohammad Ali No. 12-0008/AR
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Lt Col Peter Kageleiry, Jr., JA, USA (brief)                        ------------------------------------------------------(reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Chad Fisher, JA, USA (brief)

Brief of Amici Curiae -- John F. O'Connor, Michael J. Navarre, Air Force Appellate Defense Division, and Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Division

Brief of Amici Curiae -- Eric Schnapper and Jeffery Barnum

Case Summary:  GCM conviction of a civilian contractor for making a false official statement, wrongful appropriation, and obstruction of justice. Granted issues question (1) whether the military judge erred in ruling that the Court had jurisdiction to try Appellant and thereby violated the due process clause of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by refusing to dismiss the charges and specifications; (2) whether the court-martial had jurisdiction over Appellant pursuant to Article 2 (a) (10), Uniform Code of Military Justice; and (3) whether an Article 134 clause 1 or 2 specification that fails to expressly allege either potential terminal element states an offense under the Supreme Court's holdings in United States v. Resendiz-Ponce and Russell v. United States, and this Court's opinion in United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument. This case will be heard at the University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, Washington.



Monday, April 23, 2012

9:00 a.m.

United States v.

Michael C. Behenna No. 12-0030/AR
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Jack B. Zimmermann, Esq. (brief)(reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Stephen E. Latino, JA, USA  (brief)

Amicus Curiae Brief -- The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Amicus Curiae Brief -- National Institute of Military Justice

Case Summary:  GCM conviction of unpremeditated murder and assault. Granted issues question (1) whether the military judge's erroneous instruction limiting the right to self-defense deprived Appellant of his constitutional right to a fair trial; and (2) whether the government's failure to disclose favorable information to the defense deprived Appellant of his constitutional right to a fair trial.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument in this case.


Followed by:

United States v.

Michael Ignacio No. 12-0202/NA
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Michael D. Berry, USMC (brief)                             -----------------------------------------------(reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee: LT Benjamin J. Voce-Gardner, JAGC, USN                              ------------------------------------------------------(brief)

Case Summary:  GCM conviction of abusive sexual contact. Granted issue states: In an Article 120(h), UCMJ, case, the military judge failed to instruct the members to consider all of the evidence, including the evidence of consent, when determining whether the Government proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of United States v. Prather, and United States v. Cheeseman, does the application of the affirmative defense provided by Article 120 without the aforementioned instruction violate Appellant's right to due process?

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument in this case.


Followed by:

United States v.

Darren N. Hathorne No. 12-6002/AF
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Michael S. Kerr, USAF (supplement) (brief)
Counsel for Appellee: Gerald R. Bruce, Esq. (answer) (brief)

Case Summary:  At a SPCM, Appellant was charged with the wrongful use of cocaine. Prior to trial, the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction signed a grant of testimonial immunity for the Appellant concerning a related case. During an interview with government counsel, Appellant was given warnings under Article 31, UCMJ, but he was not told of the grant of immunity. Appellant waived his rights and admitted to the wrongful use of cocaine. At trial, the military judge granted a defense motion to dismiss the charge and specification with prejudice. The United States filed an appeal under Article 62, UCMJ, and on October 4, 2011, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded the case to trial. The Appellant petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) for a grant of review on October 19, 2011. Appellant's requests to stay the trial proceedings were denied by the military judge and CAAF. Trial proceeded on November 2, 2011, and Appellant was convicted of the wrongful use of cocaine and sentenced to confinement for 7 days, hard labor without confinement for 30 days, restriction for 30 days and reduction to E-1. On January 4, 2012, CAAF granted Appellant's petition on the issue of whether government counsel's strategic withholding of the convening authority's grant of immunity makes Appellant's statement to government counsel non-immunized; and on the specified issue of whether, in light of United States v. Lopez de Victoria, 66 M.J. 67 (C.A.A.F. 2008), CAAF has jurisdiction over an Article 62, UCMJ, appeal when the court-martial has adjudged a sentence that did not include a punitive discharge or confinement for one year.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument in this case.


Hearings have been scheduled on the following dates.

All scheduled hearings will include case summaries. These hearings will be held in the courtroom located on the second floor of the Courthouse, 450 E Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20442-0001, unless otherwise noted.

Audio recordings of hearings normally will be available on this page the day following the hearing.

 

 
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces • 450 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20442-0001
(202) 761-1448 / DSN 763-1448 • (202) 761-4672 fax