YOU ARE HERE: > HOME > BRIEFS OF GRANTED CASES WITHOUT A HEARING DATE

 


BRIEFS OF GRANTED CASES WITHOUT A HEARING DATE
(Last Updated 7/19/24)

In descending order, the following cases have been granted by this Court and ordered to file briefs. These cases have not yet been scheduled for hearings. Links to the briefs are provided soon after the briefs have been filed at this Court. Cases will be removed when a hearing date has been scheduled -- see Hearing Calendar -- or when another disposition has been published.

See Daily Journal for complete court proceedings.




Thursday, July 18, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0124/NA. U.S. v. Jeremy W. Harborth. CCA 202200157. Appellant/Cross-Appellee's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is granted on the following issue:

 

WAS THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE BY NOT SEEKING SUPPRESSION OF ALL EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM THE UNLAWFUL SEIZURE OF CHIEF HARBORTH'S PROPERTY?

 

Appellant/Cross-Appellee's brief     Appellee/Cross-Appellant's brief

 

[related case: U.S. v. Harborth, 24-0125/NA, certificate for review, 29 March 2024]




Friday, June 14, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0089/AF. U.S. v. Nikolas S. Casillas. CCA 40302. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ARTICLE 120(b)(2) AND (g)(7), UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920(b)(2) AND (g)(7), ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE BECAUSE THEY FAIL TO PUT DEFENDANTS ON FAIR NOTICE OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST THEM.

 

II. AS APPLIED, WHETHER ARTICLE 120(b)(2) AND (g)(7), UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920(b)(2) AND (g)(7), GAVE APPELLANT CONSTITUTIONAL FAIR NOTICE WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE DENIED DEFENSE COUNSEL'S REQUEST FOR A TAILORED JURY INSTRUCTION.

 

III. WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT WITHOUT CONSENT WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT.

 

IV. IN A SEXUAL ASSAULT TRIAL, DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSE HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE DENIED THE ACCUSED'S CHALLENGE FOR ACTUAL AND IMPLIED BIAS FOR A MEMBER WHOSE WIFE HAD BEEN RAPED.

 

V. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.

 

VI. AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL BY "DEMONSTRATING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION" WHEN HE WAS NOT CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT OFFENSE. (quoting New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022)).

 

Appellant's brief (Issues I - IV only)    Appellee's brief     Appellant's reply brief




Thursday, June 6, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0098/AF. U.S. v. Thomas M. Saul. CCA 40341. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER A GUILTY PLEA FOR WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE 109, UCMJ, CAN BE PROVIDENT WHEN APPELLANT THRICE TOLD THE MILITARY JUDGE THAT HE "DID NOT INTEND TO DAMAGE THE [PROPERTY]" AND THAT HE WAS SURPRISED THERE WAS ACTUAL DAMAGE.

 

II. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.

 

III. AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE 18 U.S.C. §922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL BY "DEMONSTRATING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATIONS" WHEN HE WAS NOT CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT OFFENSE. (quoting New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022)).

 

Appellant's brief (Issue I only)    Appellee's brief     Appellant's reply brief




Wednesday, May 15, 2024

Certificate for Review

 

No. 24-0156/AR. U.S. v. Ross E. Downum. CCA 20220575. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN CONDUCTING ITS LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS WHEN IT HELD THAT UNITED STATES V. CAMPBELL, 50 M.J. 154, 160 (C.A.A.F. 1999), REQUIRES NOT ONLY EXPERT TESTIMONY INTERPRETING URINALYSIS RESULTS BUT THE ADMISSION OF THE UNDERLYING PAPER URINALYSIS RESULTS AS WELL.

 

II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT UNOBJECTED TO EXPERT TESTIMONY INTERPRETING THE URINALYSIS RESULTS LACKED RELEVANCE WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF THE PAPER URINALYSIS RESULTS.

 

III. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT FAILED TO CONDUCT A PROPER FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(1)(B).

 

Appellant's brief     Appellee's brief     Appellant's reply brief




Tuesday, May 14, 2024

Certificate for Review

 

No. 24-0152/AR. United States, Appellant, v. Tayron D. Davis, Appellee. CCA 20220272. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE REASSIGNMENT OF APPELLANT'S CASE RESULTED IN STRUCTURAL ERROR.

 

II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE REASSIGNMENT OF APPELLANT'S CASE RESULTED IN PREJUDICE AND THUS DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE.

 

Appellant's brief     Appellee's brief     Appellant's reply brief




Tuesday, May 7, 2024

Order Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 24-0096/AF. U.S. v. Jaquan Q. Greene-Watson. CCA 40293. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE MILITARY JUDGE'S DECISION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OCCURRING 17 MONTHS AFTER THE CHARGED OFFENSE TO SHOW A COMMON SCHEME OR PLAN UNDER MIL. R. EVID. 404(b)—USING A DIFFERENT RATIONALE THAN THE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

Appellant will file a brief on or before June 7, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief.

 

Appellant's brief     Appellee's brief     Appellant's reply brief




Friday, March 29, 2024

Certificate for Review

 

No. 24-0125/NA. U.S. v. Jeremy W. Harborth. CCA 202200157. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on the following issues:

 

I.  DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR BY (1) FINDING THE WARRANTLESS SEIZURE OF APPELLEE'S ELECTRONIC DEVICES WAS JUSTIFIED BY PROBABLE CAUSE, AND (2) NOT RULING ON LAW ENFORCEMENT'S RELIANCE ON ACTUAL AND APPARENT AUTHORITY?

 

II. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RULING THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT COULD NOT RELY ON ACTUAL OR APPARENT AUTHORITY AND BY HOLDING THE DELAY IN SECURING A SEARCH AUTHORIZATION WAS UNREASONABLE, THEREBY SETTING ASIDE APPELLEE'S CONVICTIONS?

 

III. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FAILING TO FIND THAT APPELLEE WAIVED OBJECTION TO THE DURATION OF THE SEIZURE, WHEN APPELLEE NEVER OBJECTED AT TRIAL TO THE DURATION OF THE SEIZURE, AND MIL. R. EVID. 311 STATES THAT OBJECTIONS NOT MADE AT TRIAL ARE WAIVED?

 

IV. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FAILING TO FIRST DETERMINE WHETHER MS. HOTEL WAS A GOVERNMENT ACTOR, AND IF SO, DID MS. HOTEL'S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE GOVERNMENT ACTION, THUS IMPLICATING FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION, WHEN SHE SEIZED APPELLEE'S OTHER DEVICES AND PROVIDED THEM TO HPD AND NCIS?

 

V. HAVING FOUND A REASONABLE PROBABILIY THAT A MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE SEIZURE AND SEARCH OF APPELLEE'S IPHONE XS WOULD HAVE BEEN MERITORIOUS, DID THE NMCCA ERR IN NOT FINDING PREJUDICE FROM THE DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT MOVING TO SUPPRESS THIS EVIDENCE?

 

Appellant's brief     Appellee's brief     Appellant's reply brief

 

[related case: U.S. v. Harborth, 24-0124/NA, order granting petition for review, 18 July 2024]

 

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