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

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

---

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Dustin M. Clark	No. 16-0068/NA
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Lt James M. Belforti, JAGC, USN (brief)
                                    ------------------------------------- (reply brief)         
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj M. Brian Magee, USMC (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape and forcible sodomy. Certified issues are as follows: (1) Article 66(c), UCMJ, requires that Courts of Criminal Appeals conduct a plenary review of the entire record and "recogniz[e] that the trial court saw and heard the witnesses." In reversing Appellee's convictions for factual insufficiency without acknowledging the military judge's non-guilt special findings, did the lower court fail to conduct a complete Article 66(c) review? and (2) In conducting its factual sufficiency review, the lower court used a different standard of review for the non-guilt special findings made by the military judge under Rule for Courts-Martial 918(b) than that adopted by the Army and Air Force Courts of Criminal Appeals. Should the lower court have reviewed the military judge's non-guilt special findings under the clear error standard adopted by the Army and Air Force Courts of Criminal Appeals?

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Matthew A. Rogers	No. 16-0006/CG
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant:  LT Philip A. Jones, USCG (brief) (reply brief)   Counsel for Appellee:   LT Lars Okmark, USCG (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of conspiracy, making a false official statement, aggravated sexual assault, misuse of a military ID, and obstruction of justice. Granted issue questions whether the military judge erred in denying the implied bias challenge against CDR K in light of her various professional and personal experience with sexual assault.

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