UNITED STATES
COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 04-180
PETITIONS FOR GRANT
OF REVIEW FILED
No. 04-0575/NA.
No. 04-0576/NA.
No. 04-0577/AR.
UNITED STATES
COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 04-179
APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 02-0593/AF.
No. 02-0772/NA.
WHETHER THE
NAVY-MARINE
CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY SUSTAINED APPELLANT’S
CONVICTIONS
UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 2252 AS HIS PLEAS WERE IMPROVIDENT IN LIGHT OF THE
SUPREME
COURT’S RECENT HOLDING IN ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION.
The decision of
the United
States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to Specification
3 of the
Charge and the sentence is reversed, but is affirmed in all other
respects. The finding of guilty of
Specification 3 of the Charge and the sentence are set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal
Appeals. That Court may either dismiss
Specification 3
of the Charge and reassess the sentence based on the affirmed guilty
findings
or order a rehearing.
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (concurring in part,
dissenting in part): As to Appellant’s
conviction
for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A [Specification 3], I dissent for the
reasons
set forth in Sections A and B of my separate opinion in United
States v.
O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450, 455 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (Crawford, C.J.,
dissenting). As to Appellant’s conviction
for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252 [Specifications 1 and 2], I concur. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
this date.]
No. 02-0827/AF.
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL LEGAL ERROR WHEN HE PROVIDED
AN
INCOMPLETE DEFINITION OF “CHILD PORNOGRAPHY” WHILE INSTRUCTING
APPELLANT ON THE
ELEMENTS TO THE OFFENSES AND WHETHER APPELLANT’S GUILTY PLEA TO
KNOWINGLY
POSSESSING AND TRANSPORTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY MUST BE SET ASIDE.
Appellant pleaded
guilty to
violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2000), portions of which were subsequently
held to
be unconstitutional in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535
U.S. 234
(2002). The military judge’s plea
inquiry made no reference to those portions, however, and focused
Appellant’s
attention on the portions of the statute subsequently held to be
constitutional. Appellant’s responses
were directed toward the portions of the statute subsequently held to
be
constitutional, and there is no basis in law and fact for questioning
the
providence of his guilty plea. O’Connor,
58 M.J. at 454.
The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal
Appeals is
affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
No. 03-0255/MC.
No. 03-0465/AR.
WHETHER
APPELLANT’S GUILTY
PLEA UNDER THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT CONSTITUTED A KNOWING AND
INTELLIGENT
WAIVER OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WHEN NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR THE
MILITARY
JUDGE UNDERSTOOD WHAT BEHAVIOR WAS PROSCRIBED BY THE ACT.
Appellant pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. §
2252A (2000), portions of which were subsequently held to be
unconstitutional
in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). The military judge’s plea inquiry made no
reference to those portions, however, and focused Appellant’s attention
on the
portions of the statute subsequently held to be constitutional. Appellant’s responses were directed towards
the portions of the statute subsequently held to be constitutional, and
there
is no substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the providence
of his
guilty plea. O’Connor, 58 M.J. at 454. The
decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is
affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW
this date.]
No. 03-0605/NA.
WHETHER THE
NAVY-MARINE
CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING APPELLANT’S
CONVICTION BASED
ON OVERBROAD AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITIONS OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
The decision of
the United
States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the
findings
of guilty and the sentence are set aside.
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of
the
Navy for further action consistent with this Court’s decision in United
States
v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003)
A rehearing may be ordered.
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I
dissent for the reasons set forth in my
separate opinion in United States v. Thompson, 57 M.J. 319
(C.A.A.F.
2002) (Crawford, C.J., dissenting), and Section A of my separate
opinion in United
States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450, 455 (C.A.A.F. 2003)(Crawford,
C.J.,
dissenting). [See also ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
No. 03-0632/AR.
No. 03-0661/MC.
No. 04-0014/NA.
It is further
directed that
Specification 7 of Charge II on the promulgating order be corrected to
reflect
“18
§ 2252(a)(2).” [See also
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
this date.]
No. 04-0162/AR.
No. 04-0189/AR.
No. 04-0211/AF.
WHETHER
APPELLANT’S PLEA OF
GUILTY TO OFFENSES UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 2252A WAS IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE HE
HAD AN
INCOMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE OFFENSES WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE
EXPLAINED THE
OFFENSES USING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AND OVERBROAD DEFINITIONS
OF CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY CONTAINED IN 18 U.S.C. § 2256.
The decision of
the United
States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the
findings of
guilty and the sentence are set aside.
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of
the Air
Force for further action consistent with this Court’s decision in United
States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003)
A rehearing may be ordered.
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): As to
Appellant’s conviction for violating 18
U.S.C. § 2252A (2000), I dissent for the reasons set forth in Sections
A, B,
and C of my separate opinion in United States v. O’Connor, 58
M.J. 450,
455 (C.A.A.F. 2003)(Crawford, C.J., dissenting). [See
also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
this date.]
ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 02-0593/AF.
No. 02-0772/NA.
No. 02-0827/AF.
No. 03-0465/AR.
No. 03-0605/NA.
No. 03-0632/AR.
No. 03-0661/MC.
No. 04-0014/NA.
No. 04-0162/AR.
No. 04-0189/AR.
No. 04-0211/AF.
CERTIFICATES FOR
REVIEW FILED
No. 04-5006/AR.
WHETHER THE
UNITED STATES
ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND DENIAL OF A
MITIGATION
SPECIALIST TO BE PREJUDICIAL ERROR FOR FINDINGS WHEN THE SAME OPINION
ALSO
FOUND THAT ALL EVIDENCE THE MITIGATION SPECIALIST WOULD HAVE DISCOVERED
DID NOT
HAVE A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF PRODUCING A DIFFERENT RESULT.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT
OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 04-0360/AR.
No. 04-0408/AF.
No. 04-0418/AR.
No. 04-0437/AR.
No. 04-0447/AR.
No. 04-0449/AR.
No. 04-0453/AR.
No. 04-0455/AF.
No. 04-0462/AF.
No. 04-0478/AF.
No. 04-0487/AR.
No. 04-0488/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS
DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc. No.
04-8022/AR.
Misc. No.
04-8023/AF.
Fernando T. TELLO, Petitioner, v.
INTERLOCUTORY
ORDERS
No. 00-0679/AR.
No. 04-0470/AR.
No. 04-0524/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-178
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0568/AR.
No.
04-0569/AF.
No.
04-0570/AF.
No.
04-0571/AF.
No.
04-0572/AF.
No.
04-0573/AF.
No.
04-0574/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
04-0246/AR.
WHETHER THE ORDER
THAT APPELLANT SUBMIT TO AN ANTHRAX
VACCINATION ON AUGUST 24, 2000, WAS A LAWFUL ORDER UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AT
THAT TIME.
Counsel
representing the Appellee shall file an
answer within
30 days after the filing of Appellant’s additional supplement.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
03-0691/MC.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-177
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0566/NA.
No.
04-0567/AF.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-176
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 98-0497/NA.
WHETHER
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CORRECTLY DETERMINED AFTER THE DUBAY
HEARING THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING SENTENCING.
No. 04-0218/MC.
WHETHER THE LOWER
COURT
ERRED WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT ABUSE HIS
DISCRETION
DURING VOIR DIRE BY APPLYING AN "ACTUAL BIAS" STANDARD TO DENY THE
DEFENSE'S THREE "IMPLIED BIAS" CHALLENGES AND BY PREVENTING THE
DEFENSE FROM FULLY DEVELOPING THE FACTS TO SUPPORT THE CHALLENGES TO
MEMBERS
WHO WERE OR HAD BEEN TRIAL COUNSEL'S CLIENTS.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 02-0505/AF.
No. 04-0206/AR.
No. 04-0212/AR.
No. 04-0279/AF.
No. 04-0364/MC.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 04-0564/AR.
No. 04-0565/MC.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-175
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 04-0457/AF.
No. 04-0512/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 04-0452/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 04-0562/NA.
No. 04-0563/AF.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No.
04-8012/NA.
Misc. No.
04-8017/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 04-0502/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-174
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0561/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-173
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 04-0250/AR.
WHETHER
THE UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY HOLDING THAT
THE
STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S FAILURE TO ADVISE THE CONVENING AUTHORITY OF THE
NATURE
AND DURATION OF APPELLANT'S PRETRIAL RESTRAINT DID NOT CONSTITUTE
PREJUDICIAL
ERROR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0559/AR.
No.
04-0560/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
04-0310/AF.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-172
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
04-0410/AF.
No.
04-0426/AF.
No.
04-0440/AR.
No.
04-0446/AR.
No.
04-0448/AR.
No.
04-0450/AR.
No.
04-0451/AR.
No.
04-0459/AF.
No.
04-0463/AF.
No.
04-0467/AF.
No.
04-0468/AF.
No.
04-0477/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0553/NA.
No.
04-0554/NA.
No.
04-0555/AF.
No.
04-0556/AF.
No.
04-0557/AF.
No.
04-0558/AF.
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 04-171
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 04-0119/AF.
I.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY
DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF SEEKING A FULLY
COMPETENT
EXPERT CONSULTANT.
II.
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED ARTICLE
46, RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 703, AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO THE
No. 04-0284/AF.
I.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE
PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE
WITNESSES
AGAINST HIM BY REFUSING TO PERMIT DEFENSE COUNSEL TO EXPLORE THE
POTENTIAL BIAS
OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARISING FROM PROMISES BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
LIMIT
PUNISHMENT OF THE WITNESSES IN EXCHANGE FOR COOPERATION WITH THE
GOVERNMENT IN
THE PROSECUTION OF APPELLANT.
II.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN
GRANTING THE PROSECUTION'S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE (OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION)
AGAINST
A COURT MEMBER.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW
FILED
No.
04-0552/AR.
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 04-170
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW
FILED
No.
04-0551/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
04-0386/AR.
No.
04-0445/AR.
No.
04-0500/AR.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-169
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 04-0177/NA.
WHETHER THE
No. 04-0295/AR.
I. WHETHER THE
ARMY COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF
EXTRANEOUS
PREJUDICIAL INFORMATION IMPROPERLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
SENTENCING
AUTHORITY AND NO BASIS FOR IMPEACHING APPELLANT'S SENTENCE UNDER
MIL.R.EVID. 606(b).
II. WHETHER THE
MILITARY
JUDGE ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE COLLATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECT OF THE
ARMY
REGIONAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES' POLICY OF GRANTING A SERVICE MEMBER
FIVE DAYS
OF CONFINEMENT CREDIT PER MONTH FOR SENTENCES WHICH INCLUDE LESS THAN
TWELVE
MONTHS OF CONFINEMENT IN ADJUDGING APPELLANT'S SENTENCE.
No. 04-0382/AF.
I. WHETHER
APPELLANT'S
ARTICLE 10, UCMJ, RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL WAS WAIVED BY AN
UNCONDITIONAL GUILTY
PLEA IF THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT BRING APPELLANT TO TRIAL WITH REASONABLE
DILIGENCE, TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL LITIGATED THE MATTER AT TRIAL, AND
APPELLANT
DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.
II. WHETHER
APPELLANT'S
ARTICLE 10, UCMJ, RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL WAS VIOLATED IF THE
GOVERNMENT DID
NOT BRING APPELLANT TO TRIAL WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 04-0281/AF.
No. 04-0320/AR.
No. 04-0376/AR.
No. 04-0403/AR.
No. 04-0416/AR.
No. 04-0424/AF.
No. 04-0425/AF.
No. 04-0434/AF.
No. 04-0444/AR.
No. 04-0469/AF.
No. 04-0471/AR.
No. 04-0481/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 98-0783/NA.
No. 04-0549/AR.
No. 04-0550/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 03-0694/AR.
No. 04-0208/AR.
No. 04-0489/AR.
____________
*/
Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-168
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0545/AR.
No.
04-0546/AR.
No.
04-0547/AF.
No.
04-0548/AF.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-167
CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED
No.
04-5005/NA.
I.
WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT
HELD THE
MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY GIVING THE STANDARD
INSTRUCTION ON
APPELLEE’S SILENCE OVER APPELLEE’S OBJECTION WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE
BELIEVED
THE INSTRUCTION WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE MEMBERS FROM QUESTIONING
APPELLEE’S SILENCE AND HOLDING IT AGAINST HIM.
II.
SHOULD THE COURT FIND THE MILITARY JUDGE DID ERR, WHETHER THE
NAVY-MARINE CORPS
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THERE WAS A PRESUMPTION OF
PREJUDICE FOR THIS INSTRUCTIONAL ERROR, REQUIRING AUTOMATIC REVERSAL
UNLESS THE
GOVERNMENT REBUTS THE PRESUMPTION BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-166
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 01-0403/AF.
No. 02-0801/AR.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 01-0403/AF.
No. 02-0801/AR.
No. 04-0217/AF.
WHETHER
APPELLANT WAS DENIED MEANINGFUL CROSS-EXAMINATION OF KEY GOVERNMENT
WITNESSES
IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WHERE THE MILITARY JUDGE PREVENTED
TRIAL
DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM CONFRONTING THE WITNESSES WITH MATERIAL
IMPEACHMENT
EVIDENCE.
No. 04-0240/AR.
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED HOMOSEXUAL
ACTS
BETWEEN APPELLANT WHEN HE WAS THIRTEEN YEARS OLD, AND A SIX-YEAR-OLD
BOY, EIGHT
YEARS BEFORE THE CHARGED OFFENSE OF FORCIBLE SODOMY WITH AN ADULT
SOLDIER.
No. 04-0340/MC.
WHETHER THE COURT
OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS, IN RELYING ON UNITED STATES V. ROJAS, 15 M.J.
902
(N-M.C.M.R. 1983) AND UNITED STATES V. USRY, 9 M.J. 701
(N-M.C.M.R.
1980), APPLIED THE CORRECT LEGAL STANDARD IN REVIEWING APPELLANT'S
SENTENCE
APPROPRIATENESS ARGUMENT.
PETITIONS FOR
GRANT
OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 04-0267/AR.
No. 04-0296/NA.
No. 04-0367/AR.
No. 04-0370/AR.
No. 04-0406/MC.
No. 04-0503/NA.
PETITIONS FOR
GRANT
OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 04-0121/AR.
WHETHER APPELLANT
RECEIVED
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL BECAUSE
DEFENSE
COUNSEL HAD A DIRECT CONFLICT OF
INTEREST BETWEEN
APPELLANT
AND TWO OFFICERS CHARGED WITH
THE SAME
FORM OF MISCONDUCT.
The allied papers
in the record of trial contain a
pretrial memorandum to the Article 32 investigating officer in which
the
detailed defense counsel stated that he had a conflict of interest that
prevented him from representing Appellant.
The same defense counsel, however, stated at the outset of trial
that
“no member of the defense has acted in any manner which might tend to
disqualify us in this court-martial,” and he represented Appellant
throughout
the trial.
The record
contains no
explanation that would reconcile the apparent contradiction between
detailed
defense counsel’s pretrial and trial statements. We
conclude that additional facts are
necessary to supplement the record on this issue in order to permit
appropriate
judicial review. Accordingly, it is
ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals
is set aside. The record of trial is
returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for transmission to
an
appropriate convening authority to convene a fact-finding hearing. See
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 04-0544/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 01-0403/AF.
____________
1/
Judge Gierke
did not
participate.
2/
It is directed that the promulgating
order be
amended to reflect the correct date the sentence was adjudged.
3/
It is directed that the promulgating
order be
corrected by deleting the words “but Guilty to the Lesser Included
Offense of
wrongful appropriation” from footnote *.
Also, add the following words to footnote II:
“The accused originally pleaded Not Guilty to
Charge III and its sole Specification, but Guilty to the Lesser
Included
Offense of wrongful appropriation. However,
after the providence inquiry, the military judge did not accept the accused’s plea and entered a plea of Not Guilty
on his
behalf.”
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-165
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 04-0081/AF.
I.
WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IMPROPERLY CONDUCTED
ITS
APPELLATE REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66(C), UCMJ, BY CONSIDERING EVIDENCE
OUTSIDE THE
RECORD IN VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES v. HOLT, 58 M.J. 227
(C.A.A.F.
2003).
II.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE IMPROPERLY DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF HIS SIXTH
AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION BY ADMITTING AN ACCOMPLICE'S STATEMENTS WITHOUT
REQUIRING THAT ALL REFERNCES TO APPELLANT BE REDACTED.
III.
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN APPELLANT'S
CONVICTION
UNDER ARTICLE 111, UCMJ, WHERE THE PROSECUTION DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE
THAT
APPELLANT PHYSICALLY CONTROLLED A VEHICLE WHILE IMPAIRED.
And the
following issue specified by the Court:
IV.
WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. WALTERS, 58 M.J. 391
(C.A.A.F.
2003), THE FINDINGS OF GUILTY TO SPECIFICATIONS 3 AND 5 OF THE ORIGINAL
CHARGE
AND ADDITIONAL CHARGE I AND ITS SUPPORTING SPECIFICATION MAY BE
AFFIRMED ON
APPEAL WHERE THE FACT FINDER EXCEPTED THE PHRASE "ON DIVERS OCCASIONS"
AND SUBSTITUTED NOTHING IN ITS PLACE.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
04-0308/NA.
No.
04-0441/AF.
No.
04-0454/AR.
No.
04-0475/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No.
04-0245/AR.
No.
04-6001/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0543/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
00-0679/AR.
Appellant's
motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of
review
granted to
No.
04-0327/AR.
No.
04-0372/MC.
No.
04-0400/NA.
No.
04-0456/AF.
No.
04-0483/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
164
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
04-0323/AR.
No.
04-0351/AR.
No.
04-0357/CG.
No.
04-0394/AR.
No.
04-0399/AR.
No.
04-0404/AR.
No.
04-0407/AF.
No.
04-0409/AF.
No.
04-0412/AF.
No.
04-0420/AR.
No.
04-0422/AR.
No.
04-0423/AF.
No.
04-0430/AF.
No.
04-0436/AR.
No.
04-0476/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0541/AR.
No.
04-0542/MC.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
04-8016/AF.
Harry M. SCHMIDT, Appellant, v.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-163
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
04-0280/AF.
No.
04-0292/AR.
No.
04-0319/AR.
No.
04-0330/NA.
No.
04-0383/AR.
No.
04-0390/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0537/AR.
No.
04-0538/AF.
No.
04-0539/AF.
No.
04-0540/AF.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-162
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0535/AR.
No.
04-0536/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
03-0212/AR.
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 04-161
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW
FILED
No.
04-0534/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
03-0361/AR.
No.
03-0557/MC.
No.
04-0027/AR.
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 04-160
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW
FILED
No.
04-0531/AR.
No.
04-0532/AR.
No.
04-0533/AF.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 04-8021/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
03-0647/AR.
No.
04-0042/AR.
No.
04-0381/AR.
No.
04-0470/AR.
No.
04-0473/AR.
No.
04-5004/AR.