YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2021 TERM > MARCH 2022

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

---

Tuesday, March 1, 2022

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Brandon M. Horne	No. 21-0360/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt David L. Bosner, USAF (brief)
                                                  -------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Cortland T. Bobczynski, USAF (brief)

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Protect Our Defenders

Case Summary: GCM conviction for sexual assault. Granted issue questions whether the conduct of the trial counsel and special victim's counsel created an intolerable strain on the public's perception of the military justice system.

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

10:45 a.m.:

United States v.	Daniel A. Bench	No. 21-0341/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Alexandra K. Fleszar, USAF (brief)
                                                   ------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj John P. Patera, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of sexual abuse of a child and indecent conduct. Granted issue questions whether lying to a witness about Appellant's presence in the courtroom to secure testimony materially prejudices Appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.

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

---

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Samuel B. Badders	No. 22-0052/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: Terri R. Zimmermann, Esq. (supplement)
                                                    --------------------------------- (reply)
Counsel for Appellee:  MAJ Dustin Morgan, JA, USA (answer)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of sexual assault. Granted issue questions whether the Army Court had jurisdiction over this government appeal of the military judge's post-trial order granting a mistrial.

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

10:45 a.m.:

United States v.	Ethen D. Black	No. 22-0066/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: CAPT Joseph A. Seaton, JA, USA
                                                   ------------------------- (supplement)
                                                   ----------------------------------- (reply)
Counsel for Appellee:  CAPT Dustin Morgan, JA, USA (answer)

Case Summary: In this Article 62, UCMJ, appeal, the Army Court held the military judge erred by finding that third party consent to search PFC Black's cell phone was unlawful and suppressed evidence of child pornography found on his cell phone. Granted issue questions whether the Army Court erred in its abuse of discretion analysis by (1) creating a novel test for common authority, (2) failing to give deference to the military judge's findings, (3) comparing modern cell phone to a traditional "container," and (4) finding error based on a difference of opinion.

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