YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2024 TERM > MARCH 2025

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

---

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Edmond A. Maebane, III	No. 24-0196/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Zoe R. Danielczyk, JAGC, USN (brief)
                                              ------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee: LT K. Matthew Parker, JAGC, USN (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction for reckless endangerment and involuntary manslaughter. Granted issue questions whether an accused has a Sixth Amendment right to present evidence of a recorded third party's confession to the crime for which the accused is on trial?

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Dominic L. Ruiz	No. 24-0158/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Raymond E. Bilter, JAGC, USN (brief)
                                             ------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  LCDR James P. Wu Zhu, JAGC, USN (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for abusive sexual contact. Granted issue questions whether the military judge abused her discretion in admitting the complaining witness's statement to law enforcement as a prior consistent statement under M.R.E 801(d)(1)(B)(ii).

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

---

Wednesday, March 19, 2025

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	James L. Taylor, Jr.	No. 24-0234/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Frederick J. Johnson, USAF (brief)                                                 -------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Heather R. Bezold, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for sexual assault and abusive sexual contact. Article 2(d)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 802(d)(2), sets forth the authority to involuntarily order members of reserve components to active duty for trial by court-martial. The granted issue is whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred by using the absurdity doctrine to interpret this provision in a manner that conflicts with the plain and unambiguous meaning of the statutory language?

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