YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2017 TERM > OCTOBER 2017

 


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


Tuesday, October 10, 2017

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.

Erik P. Jacobsen No.17-0408/AR
(Appellant) (Appellee) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Catherine M. Parnell, JA, USA (brief)
                                            ---------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Cody Cheek, JA, USA (brief)   

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Air Force Appellate Government Division

Case Summary: GCM prosecution for violations of Article 120. The military judge suppressed certain evidence. The government filed an appeal under Article 62. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals denied the government's appeal. The Judge Advocate General of the Army certified the following issue: Whether the trial counsel's certification that evidence is "substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding" is conclusive for purposes of establishing appellate jurisdiction under Article 62(a)(1)(B), Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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


Followed by:

United States v.

Alan S. Guardado No. 17-0183/AR
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant: James S. Trieschmann, Esq. (brief)
                                  ---------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:   Capt Austin L. Fenwick, JA, USA (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape of a child, indecent liberties with a child, assault and battery of a child, inappropriate sexual comments to a child, and communicating indecent language. Granted issues question: (1) whether the Army Court incorrectly found that the military judge's panel instructions were harmless error in light of United States v. Hills, and (2) whether the Army Court incorrectly ruled that an offense defined by the President cannot preempt a General Article 134, UCMJ, offense, and that preemption is not jurisdictional in such circumstances.

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


Followed by:

United States v.

Timothy B. Hennis No. 17-0263/AR
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Timothy G. Burroughs, JA, USA
                                     --------------------------------------------- (motion)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Samuel E. Landes, JA, USA
                                     ---------------- (answer) (reply to Court order)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for murder, and Appellant sentenced to death. On mandatory review, Appellant asks this Court to order the government to provide (1) appellate counsel learned in the law; (2) a capital mitigation specialist; (3) a fact investigator; and (4) members of the appellate defense team in accordance with AR 27-10. At issue for oral argument is whether Appellee must provide Appellant with defense assistance that comports with the qualifications suggested by paragraph 28-6(c) of AR 27-10.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 10 minutes to present oral argument.


Wednesday, October 11, 2017

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.

Edzel D. Mangahas No. 17-0434/AF
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Terri R. Zimmerman, Esq. (supplement) (reply)
                                      ------------------------------- (specified issue brief)
                                      ------------------------ (specified issue reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj G. Matt Osborn, USAF (answer)
                                      ------------------------------- (specified issue brief)
Case Summary: GCM prosecution for rape. The military judge dismissed the charge for a speedy trial violation. The government filed an appeal under Article 62. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals granted the government's appeal. The issue on appeal is whether the lower court erred in finding no due process violation when the government was inactive for over 17 years before investigating a claim of rape, violating Appellant's Fifth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

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


Followed by:

United States v.

Joseph A. Pugh No. 17-0306/AF
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant:  Maj Annie W. Morgan, USAF (brief) (reply)
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Tyler B. Mussellman, USAF (brief)  

Case Summary: GCM prosecution for willful dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92, by consuming Strong and Kind protein bars, products containing hemp seeds, which are prohibited by AFI 90-507. After members convicted Appellee of this offense and sentenced him to a dismissal, the military judge dismissed the charge, holding that there was not a sufficient nexus between military necessity and the duty AFI 90-507 sought to impose. The government filed an appeal under Article 62. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the facts were sufficient to establish the required nexus between the duty imposed by AFI 90-507 and the requirement to ensure military readiness. Granted issue questions whether the military judge erred in finding that AFI 90-507 served no valid military purpose and dismissing the charge.

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


Tuesday, October 24, 2017

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.

Brian G. Short No. 17-0187/AR
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant:  Capt Zachary A. Szilagyi, JA, USA (brief)
                                          ------------------------------------ (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:   Capt Kendra J. Holtmann Harris, JA, USA
                                          ------------------------------------------- (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of aggravated assault, and assault and battery. Granted issue questions whether government counsel committed prosecutorial misconduct when they made improper argument after repeatedly eliciting inadmissible testimony.

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


Followed by:

United States v.

Carlos A. Gonzalez-Gomez No. 17-0200/AR
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant:  Capt Matthew D. Bernstein, JA, USA (brief)
                                          -------------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:   Maj Virginia H. Tinsley, JA, USA (brief)  

Case Summary: GCM conviction of disobeying a no-contact order, making a false official statement, indecent acts, abusive sexual contact, wrongful sexual contact, and forcible sodomy. Granted issue questions whether dilatory post-trial processing violated Appellant's due process rights and warrants relief when 782 days elapsed between docketing at the Army Court and opinion.

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


Wednesday, October 25, 2017

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.

Colby C. Bailey No. 17-0265/CG
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant:  Lieutenant Jason W. Roberts, USCG (brief)
                                        ---------------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:   Lieutenant Sharyl L. Pels, USCG (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of sexual assault and abusive sexual contact. Granted issues question: (1) upon request by the defense counsel and using a defense-drafted instruction, should the military judge have provided the members with an explanation of the term "incapable", and (2) whether the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals is ambiguous as to whether the affirmed sentence included forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

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


Followed by:

United States v.

John C. Riesbeck No. 17-0208/CG
(Appellee) (Appellant) (audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Lieutenant Philip A. Jones, USCG  (brief)
                                         ----------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Lieutenant Tereza Ohley, USCG (brief)  

Case Summary: GCM conviction of making a false official statement, rape, and indecent language. Granted issues question: (1) whether the members of Appellant's court-martial panel were properly selected, and (2) whether Appellant was deprived of a fair trial, or the appearance of a fair trial, where a majority of the panel members were former victim advocates and the military judge denied a challenge for cause against one of them.

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