YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2024 TERM > OCTOBER 2024

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

---

Wednesday, October 9, 2024

10:00 a.m.:

United States v.	Tayron D. Davis	No. 24-0152/AR
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: CAPT Stewart A. Miller, USA (brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  MAJ Bryan A. Osterhage, USA (brief)

Case Summary: On 13 May 2024, the Judge Advocate General of the Army (TJAG) filed a certificate for review of Appellee's case pursuant to Art. 67(a)(2), UCMJ, asking the Court to address: whether the Army Court erred in finding the reassignment of Appellant's case resulted in structural error; and whether the Army Court erred in finding the reassignment of Appellant's case resulted in prejudice warranting dismissal with prejudice.

NOTE: This case will be held at Naval Station Norfolk, Building C-9 Auditorium, 1731 Gilbert Street, Norfolk, VA 23511, as part of the Court's Project Outreach. Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

---

Thursday, October 10, 2024

10:15 a.m.:

United States v.	Jaquan Q. Greene- Watson	No. 24-0096/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Col Matthew D. Talcott, USAF (brief)
                                            -------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Heather M. Bruha, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for communicating a threat. The granted issues address 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.

NOTE: This case will be held at Hampton University, Ogden Hall, Hampton, VA 23668, as part of the Court's Project Outreach. Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

---

Tuesday, October 22, 2024

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Thomas M. Saul	No. 24-0098/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Spencer R. Nelson, USAF (brief)
                                            --------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Vanessa Bairos, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM convictions for disobeying an officer, destruction of non-military property and wrongful use of trenbolone. Granted issues question (1) 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; (2) 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 judgement; and (3) 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).

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

---

Wednesday, October 23, 2024

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Ross E. Downum	No. 24-0156/AR
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: CAPT Anthony J. Scarpati, USA (brief)
                                                  ------------------------ (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Daniel Conway, Esq. (brief)

Case Summary: On 15 May 2024, the Judge Advocate General of the Army (TJAG) filed a certificate for review of Appellee's case pursuant to Art. 67(a)(2), UCMJ, asking the Court to address: 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; 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; and lastly whether the Army Court failed to conduct a proper factual sufficiency analysis under Article 66(d)(1)(B).

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