YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > SEPTEMBER 2015 TERM > JANUARY 2016

 


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


Tuesday, January 12, 2016

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.

Antiwan M. Henning No. 16-0026/AR
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Jennifer K. Beerman, JA, USA
                                    ------------------------------------- (supplement)         
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Jihan Walker, JA, USA (answer)    

Case Summary: GCM prosecution for rape, sexual assault and abusive sexual contact. The military judge granted a defense motion to prohibit the government from presenting expert testimony regarding a DNA test. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals granted the government's appeal under Article 62, UCMJ, vacated the military judge's ruling, and found the military judge abused his discretion in ruling to exclude the DNA evidence. Granted issue questions whether the Army Court applied the wrong standard of review to this Article 62, UCMJ, appeal when it found the military judge made erroneous findings of fact and erroneous conclusions of law.

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


Followed by:

United States v.

Jacob L. Pease No. 16-0014/NA
(Appellant) (Appellee) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant:  Maj Suzanne M. Dempsey, USMC (brief)
                                      -------------------------------------- (reply brief)    

Counsel for Appellee:   Eric S. Montalvo, Esq. (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of fraternization, sexual assault and abusive sexual contact. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the charges of sexual assault and abusive sexual contact based on factual insufficiency. Certified issues question: (1) whether the lower court judicially defined "incapable of consenting" contrary to the instructions given to the members and used this definition to find three charges of sexual assault and one charge of abusive sexual contact factually insufficient. In creating this new legal definition not considered by the factfinder and nowhere present in the record, did the lower court consider matters outside the record and outside its statutory authority in conducting its factual sufficiency review? and (2) whether the lower court judicially defined 'incapable of consenting" in a manner that limits prosecutions to only two situations:"inability to appreciate" and "inability to make and communicate" an agreement. To prove latter, the court further required proof that a victim be unable both to make and to communicate a decision to engage in the conduct at issue. Nothing in the statute reflects congressional intent to limit Article 120, UCMJ, prosecutions in this manner. Did the lower court err?

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


Wednesday, January 13, 2016

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.

Daniel H. Chin No. 15-0749/AF
(Appellant) (Appellee) (audio)  

Counsel for Appellant:  Maj Matthew J. Neil, USAF (brief)
Counsel for Appellee:   Capt Travis L. Vaughn, USAFR (brief)

Counsel for Amicus Curiae United States Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Government Division:  LT Amy L. Freyermuth, JAGC, USN (brief)

Counsel for Amicus Curiae United States Army Government Appellate Division:  Capt Jihan Walker, JA, USA (brief)

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Coast Guard Government Appellate Division:  Stephen P. McCleary, Esq. (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of failure to obey a lawful order, negligent dereliction of duty, willful dereliction of duty, larceny and unauthorized possession of documents relating to the national defense. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals held that despite his unconditional guilty plea and pretrial agreement in which he agreed to waive all waivable motions, some of the specifications to which Appellee pleaded guilty should be dismissed or merged for sentencing as an unreasonable multiplication of charges. Certified issue questions whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals committed legal error by finding that the issue of unreasonable multiplication of charges was not waived, in direct contradiction of this Court's binding precedent in United States v. Gladue, 67 M.J. 311 (C.A.A.F. 2009).

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.  Amici curiae will not be presenting oral argument.



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