UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-040
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0149/AR.
No. 05-0150/AR.
No. 05-0151/AR.
No. 05-0152/AR.
No. 05-0153/AR.
No. 05-0154/AR.
No. 05-0155/MC.
No. 05-0156/NA.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc. No. 05-8010/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 04-0216/AF.
No. 04-0336/AF.
No. 04-0734/NA.
No. 05-0032/NA.
Appellant's
motion out of time to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of
review granted to
No. 05-0071/NA.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-039
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0146/AF.
No. 05-0147/AF.
No. 05-0148/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 03-0394/AF.
No. 05-0072/MC.
No. 05-0073/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-038
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 04-0428/AF.
WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY FAILING TO SET ASIDE APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR
POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY DESPITE THE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE
CONVICTION WAS BASED ON CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-037
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0911/MC.
No. 05-0139/MC.
No. 05-0140/NA.
No. 05-0141/AR.
No. 05-0142/AR.
No. 05-0143/AF.
No. 05-0144/AF.
No. 05-0145/AF.
____________
*/ Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
CORRECTED DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-036
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 03-0141/AF.
I. WHETHER THE SENTENCE AS REASSESSED BY THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WAS NO GREATER THAN THAT WHICH WOULD
HAVE BEEN IMPOSED IF THE PREJUDICIAL ERROR HAD NOT BEEN COMMITTED.
II. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 66(c), UCMJ, BY AFFIRMING A SENTENCE THAT
WAS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACT AND WAS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED TO BE
APPROVED BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY.
After reviewing the record, we have determined that the United States Air Force
Court of Criminal Appeals abused its discretion in fulfilling its obligation to
“assure that the [reassessed] sentence is no greater than that which would have
been imposed if the prejudicial error had not been committed.” United
States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305, 308 (C.M.A. 1986)(quoting
United States v. Suzuki, 10 M.J. 248, 249 (C.M.A. 1985)).
Accordingly, the decision of that court is affirmed as to the findings and
reversed as to the sentence. The sentence is set aside. The
record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air
Force. A rehearing on sentence is authorized.*
(See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.)
*CRAWFORD,
Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate
opinions in United States v. Lajaunie, 60 M.J. 280, 281-83 (C.A.A.F.
2004)(order) (Crawford, C.J., dissenting) and United States v. Eversole,
53 M.J. 132, 138-40 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (Crawford, C.J., dissenting).
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 03-0141/AF.
No. 04-0264/AR.
I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED
IN AFFIRMING A FINDING OF GUILTY OF SOLICITATION OF CARNAL KNOWLEDGE WHERE: (1)
THE COURT USED AN OVERBROAD DEFINITION OF SOLICITATION; AND (2) THE EVIDENCE
WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT APPELLANT SOLICITED
"JOHN DAVIS" TO COMMIT CARNAL KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE APPELLANT'S ACTS DID
NOT AMOUNT TO SOLICITATION.
II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED
IN AFFIRMING A CONVICTION OF SOLICITATION OF CARNAL KNOWLEDGE WHERE: (1) THE COURT
RELIED ON ERRONEOUSLY INTRODUCED EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT; (2) THE
COURT RELIED ON IMPROPER EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH WAS UNHELPFUL AND AMOUNTED TO
INADMISSIBLE PROFILE EVIDENCE AND LEGAL OPINIOINS; AND (3) THE COURT MISTAKENLY
DETERMINED THAT THE COMBINED IMPACT OF THE ERRONEOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS AND
THE IMPROPER EXPERT TESTIMONY WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED THE MILITARY JUDGE'S
DETERMINATION OF GUILT AT TRIAL.
III. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT'S PLEAS OF GUILTY TO SPECIFICATIONS 1, 2, 3,
AND 4 OF CHARGE IV WERE PROVIDENT WHERE: (1) THE MILITARY JUDGE'S DEFINITION OF
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY INCLUDED COMPUTER-GENERATED IMAGES, A DEFINITION THE SUPREME
COURT FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; AND (2) THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT AN
ADEQUATE PROVIDENCE INQUIRY AS REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES v. CARE, 18
C.M.A. 535, 40 C.M.R. 247 (1969), AND ITS PROGENY TO ESTABLISH THAT APPELLANT
BELIEVED THE IMAGES WERE PRODUCED USING REAL CHILDREN.
IV. WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF GUILTY TO DISTRIBUTION,
RECEIPT, AND POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §§
2252A(a)(1)-(2), (2), AND (5)(a), RESPECTIVELY, MUST BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THOSE
STATUTES DO NOT APPLY TO CONDUCT ENGAGED IN OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF
THE UNITED STATES WHEN CHARGED UNDER CLAUSE 3 OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0128/AF.
No. 05-0129/AF.
No. 05-0130/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED - CONT’D
No. 05-0131/AF.
No. 05-0132/AF.
No. 05-0133/AF.
No. 05-0134/AF.
No. 05-0135/AF.
No. 05-0136/AF.
No. 05-0137/AF.
No. 05-0138/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 04-0336/AF.
No. 04-0799/NA.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-035
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 04-0575/NA.
No. 04-0670/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0125/AR.
No. 05-0126/AR.
No. 05-0127/MC.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-034
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 05-0018/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0119/AR.
No. 05-0120/MC.
No. 05-0121/AF.
No. 05-0122/AF.
No. 05-0123/AF.
No. 05-0124/AF.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 05-8009/AR. Richmond D. SLATE,
Petitioner, v.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc. No. 05-8009/AR. Richmond D. SLATE,
Petitioner, v.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 04-0555/AF.
No. 05-0033/MC.
No. 05-0047/MC.
No. 05-8002/AR. William J. KREUTZER, Petitioner, v.
*CRAWFORD, Judge
(dissenting): I respectfully dissent from the issuance of a show cause
order because: (1) absent a claim of a constitutional or statutory violation,
this Court does not have jurisdiction over an administrative confinement
classification decision (see Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529
(1999)); (2) even assuming jurisdiction, the Petitioner has not demonstrated a
legal basis for challenging an administrative confinement classification
decision; and (3) even assuming jurisdiction, the Petitioner has not met his
burden of demonstrating why he is entitled to extraordinary relief under the
All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
FACTS
Contrary to his pleas, Petitioner was convicted of premeditated murder and 18
specifications of attempted premeditated murder. Hiding in a nearby
wooded area, Petitioner opened fire upon a pre-morning run formation, killing
one of the soldiers and injuring 17 others.
In United States v. Kreutzer, 59 M.J. 773 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2004),
there were three separate opinions. The author of the lead opinion, Judge
Clevenger, held that the military trial judge abused his discretion in refusing
to grant the request for a mitigation expert. Alternatively, Judge
Clevenger would set aside the sentence on the grounds of ineffectiveness of
counsel during the sentencing stage. There was a vote for each of Judge
Clevenger’s alternative positions. Judge Currie held that counsel were
ineffective concerning the offenses to which Petitioner entered pleas of not
guilty. Senior Judge Chapman held that counsel were
ineffective only during the sentencing stage. On
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.
On
LACK OF JURISDICTION
A prerequisite for a court to exercise its All Writs authority is the
requirement that the court have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
action.
The federal courts have consistently held that, absent a statutory or
constitutional violation, confinement conditions, classification, and place of
confinement are administrative actions left to the Bureau of Prisons as prison
administrators. See, e.g., United
States v. King, 338 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2003); Berman v. Lamer, 874
F. Supp. 102 (E.D. Pa. 1995). Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (2000)(imposing limitations on certain court-ordered relief of
prison conditions). In deferring to the prison officials, the federal
courts routinely cite 18 U.S.C. § 3621 (2000)(vesting
civilian prison administrators far less discretion than is vested in service
secretaries and confinement facility commanders by 10 U.S.C. §§ 951-56 (2000)).
In Goldsmith, the Supreme Court held that the administrative elimination
of Goldsmith from the rolls was “straightforwardly” beyond this Court’s
jurisdiction. 526
[A]lthough military appellate courts are among those
empowered to issue extraordinary writs under the Act,
. . . the express terms of
the Act confine the power of the CAAF to issuing process ‘in aid of’ its
statutory jurisdiction; the Act does not enlarge that jurisdiction
. . . .
As a “general rule . . . classification decisions
are discretionary with prison officials and will not be addressed by the
Federal courts.”
LEGAL BASIS FOR CHALLENGE
(ASSUMING JURISDICTION)
Even assuming jurisdiction, Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate a
legal basis for challenging his confinement classification. Without
setting forth the alternative holdings, Petitioner commented that the court
below “set aside the sentence and the findings of guilty to all eighteen
specifications of attempted premeditated murder and to premeditated
murder.” Petition at 2. Prior to filing
his petition, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals revoked its memorandum of
Petitioner has not alleged any facts which, if true, would constitute a
constitutional or statutory violation. Further, he has not demonstrated
that the confinement classification process was irregular, flawed, or in
error. Since Petitioner has not met his burden of setting forth a legal
basis to challenge his confinement classification, it is premature and
inappropriate for this Court to shift the burden to the Government by issuance
of this show cause order.
EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
(ASSUMING JURISDICTION)
Our Court and the federal courts have indicated that a petitioner is not
entitled to extraordinary relief absent a showing that a writ is: (1)
“necessary or appropriate” relief, (2) an aid of the Court’s jurisdiction, and
(3) “agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28
U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2000). Amplifying on the All Writs Act, the
Supreme Court stated that courts should issue writs only when: (1) the party
seeking issuance of the writ has no other adequate means to attain the relief
he desires, (2) the petitioner has met the burden of showing that his right to
issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) in the exercise of its
discretion, the court is satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the
circumstances. Cheney v.
The Petitioner has not satisfied any of the prongs of the All Writs Act.
Nor has the Petitioner established that he has exhausted other alternative
means or set forth any facts to establish that the decision made by the
Commandant is erroneous or in violation of a constitutional or statutory right.
CONCLUSION
In summary, our Court’s jurisdiction is “strictly circumscribed” to review
“findings and sentences.” Goldsmith, 526
By issuance of this show cause order, the majority takes the “extraordinary”
out of our writ consideration and unnecessarily expands the jurisdiction of the
Court. I cannot concur with such overreaching of the Court’s writ
authority by the majority, and therefore respectfully dissent.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-033
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 01-0653/AF.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 01-0653/AF.
No. 04-0300/AF.
I. WHETHER IT WAS ERROR FOR THE PROSECUTION TO
INTRODUCE, OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION, APPELLANT'S FINANCIAL RECORDS FROM JUNE 1998
UNTIL JUNE 1999 AND TO THEN ARGUE THAT THIS EVIDENCE OF POVERTY CREATED A
MOTIVE FOR APPELLANT TO KNOWINGLY POSSESS MARIJUANA WITH THE INTENT TO
DISTRIBUTE IT.
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DIRECTING
APPELLANT NOT TO DISCUSS A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION DURING HIS UNSWORN STATEMENT
WHEN A LIMITING INSTRUCTION TO THE MEMBERS WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO
ADDRESS THE MILITARY JUDGE'S CONCERNS WHILE STILL PRESERVING APPELLANT'S
ALLOCUTION RIGHTS.
III. WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD DISAPPROVE
THE ADJUDGED FORFEITURES TO ENSURE THE CONVENING AUTHORITY'S CLEMENCY DECISION
TO PROVIDE APPELLANT'S PAY AND ALLOWANCES TO APPELLANT'S FAMILY IS NOT
FRUSTRATED.
No. 04-0607/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 ABUSED HIS DISCRETION
BY PERMITTING THE TRIAL COUNSEL TO ELICIT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE
APPELLANT'S PRE-SERVICE DRUG USE FROM THE APPELLANT'S MOTHER TO "REBUT"
MATTERS TO WHICH THE MILITARY JUDGE HIMSELF "OPENED THE DOOR."
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 04-0713/AR.
No. 04-0789/AF.
No. 04-0794/AF.
No. 05-0001/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0118/MC.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-032
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 04-0504/NA.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S PLEAS OF GUILTY TO OFFENSES
UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 2252A ARE IMPROVIDENT WHERE THE MILITARY JUDGE FOCUSES THE
PROVIDENCE INQUIRY ON THE AGE OF THE CHILDREN, AND WHERE THE MILITARY JUDGE AND
APPELLANT RELY ON THE DEFINITION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AS STRUCK DOWN BY ASHCROFT
v. FREE SPEECH COALITION, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).
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 O’Connor.
A rehearing may be ordered. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
this date.]
CRAWFORD,
Judge (dissenting): I dissent for reasons set forth in my dissenting
opinion in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450, 455 (C.A.A.F.
2003)(Crawford, C.J., dissenting), and:
(a) the issue was not
raised;
(b) Appellant admitted: “Because of
reading the U.S. Codes and discussing [it] with my counsel . . . [, the image]
qualifies [as child pornography].” The mention of child pornography also
appears throughout the providence inquiry; and
(c) this conduct was
prejudicial to good order and discipline or it would bring discredit on the
Armed Forces, and thus was a lesser included offense to the charged offense.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 04-0504/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 04-0780/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 02-0944/AF.
No. 03-0433/CG.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-031
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 03-0688/NA.
WHETHER THE
No. 04-0588/NA.
I. WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING
IN CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON, 124 S. CT. 1354 (2004), PROSECUTION EXHIBITS
2 AND 3 CONSTITUTE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY REQUIRING THAT THEIR DECLARANTS BE
SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION AS REQUIRED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION.
And the following issues specified by the Court:
II. WHETHER, APART FROM THE CONFRONTATION ISSUE OF CRAWFORD
v.
III. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON THE MERITS
WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT WAS
GUILTY OF DESERTION FROM HIS ORGANIZATION, THE NAVY ABSENTEE COLLECTION AND
No. 04-0611/AF.
WHETHER THE
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 04-0646/AR.
No. 04-0660/AR.
No. 04-0701/AR.
No. 04-0733/MC.
No. 04-0746/NA.
No. 04-0766/AR.
No. 04-0793/AR.
No. 05-0011/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0112/AR.
No. 05-0113/AR.
No. 05-0114/AR.
No. 05-0115/AR.
No. 05-0116/AR.
No. 05-0117/MC.
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No. 02-0944/AF.
No. 03-0433/CG.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 03-0433/CG.
No. 03-0568/AR.
No. 04-0178/AR.
No. 05-0041/AF.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-030
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 04-0598/CG.
No. 04-0731/AF.
No. 04-0769/AF.
No. 04-0786/AF.
No. 04-0795/AF.
No. 04-0800/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0105/AR.
No. 05-0106/AR.
No. 05-0107/AR.
No. 05-0108/AR.
No. 05-0109/AF.
No. 05-0110/AF.
No. 05-0111/MC.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 04-0524/AR.
No. 05-0037/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-029
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0103/MC.
No. 05-0104/AF.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-028
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 02-0443/AR.
No. 04-0493/AF.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEAS TO SPECIFICATIONS 2
AND 3 OF CHARGE I ARE IMPROVIDENT AND MUST BE SET ASIDE IN LIGHT OF ASHCROFT
v. FREE SPEECH COALITION, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), AND UNITED STATES v.
O'CONNOR, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003).
Specification 2 of Charge I is amended to read as
follows:
In that STAFF SERGEANT ROBERT S. DEIHL, United
States Air
Force, 436th Civil Engineering Squadron,
Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, did, at or near Dover, Delaware, on divers
occasions between on or about 1 November 1997 and on or about 1 November 1999,
knowingly receive child pornography that had been transported in interstate
commerce by computer, via the Internet, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 2252A(a)(2)(A).
Specification 3 of Charge I is
amended to read as follows:
In that STAFF SERGEANT ROBERT S. DEIHL, United
States Air
Force, 436th Civil Engineering Squadron,
Dover Air Force Base,Delaware, did, at or near Dover,
Delaware, on divers occasions between on or about 1 November 1997 and on or
about 5 August 1999, knowingly possess a computer hard drive and computer disks
containing images of child pornography that had been transported in interstate
commerce by computer, via the Internet, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 2252A(a)(5)(B).
The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is
affirmed as to Specifications 2 and 3 of Charge I as amended, as well as to the
remaining Charges and their Specifications and sentence. [See also ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 02-0443/AR.
No. 04-0493/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 01-0588/AR.
No. 05-0100/AR.
No. 05-0101/AF.
No. 05-0102/AR.
____________
*/
Second
petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-027
HEARINGS
No.
03-0646/AR.
No.
04-0218/MC.
No.
04-0348/AR.
No.
98-0497/NA.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No.
04-0567/AF.
I. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IMPROPERLY
SEVERED THE APPELLANT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CONFIDENTIAL DEFENSE EXPERT
CONSULTANT.
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY
REFUSING TO PERMIT THE APPELLANT TO PRESENT A MOSAIC OF ALIBI WITNESSES TO
COUNTER THE PERMISSIVE INFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 112a, UCMJ, CREATING AN ERROR
VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
04-0665/AF.
No.
04-0673/AR.
No.
04-0689/NA.
No.
04-0695/AR.
No.
04-0727/AR.
No.
04-0730/AF.
No.
04-0745/AR.
No.
04-0773/AF.
No.
04-0774/AF.
No.
04-0782/AR.
No.
05-0008/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0098/AR.
No.
05-0099/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 04-8029/NA. Reginold D. ALLISON, Petitioner, v. The Judge Advocate
General of the Navy and the
____________
*/ It is directed that the promulgating order be
corrected by deleting the word “possessing” in specification 2 of Charge II and
substituting therefor the word “distributing.”
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-026
HEARINGS
No. 04-0284/AF.
No. 04-0119/AF.
No. 04-0295/AR.
No. 04-0250/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0094/AR.
No. 05-0095/AR.
No. 05-0096/AF.
No. 05-0097/AF.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-025
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 04-0703/AR.
No. 04-0726/AF.
No. 04-0737/AR.
No. 04-0739/AF.
No. 04-0753/AF.
No. 04-0755/MC.
No. 04-0760/AF.
No. 04-0762/AR.
No. 04-0772/AF.
No. 04-0776/AF.
No. 04-0787/AF.
No. 05-0005/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0093/AF.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 03-8022/NA.
Misc. No. 05-8008/NA. Troy B. JENKINS, Petitioner, v.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc. No. 05-8007/NA. Roberto RODRIGUEZ-RIVERA,
Petitioner, v. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, The Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and
Notice
is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a
writ of mandamus was filed under Rule 27(a) on October 18, 2004, and placed on
the docket this date. On consideration thereof, it is ordered that
Respondents, The Judge Advocate General of the Navy and the United States will
each show cause on or before November 29, 2004, why the requested relief should
not be granted; and that Petitioner may file a reply under Rule 28(c)(1) no later than 5 days after the filing of the
Respondents’ answer to this Order.
CRAWFORD,
Judge (dissenting):
I would deny this petition without prejudice and permit Petitioner to raise the
issue during the course of normal appellate review. Cf. Cheney v.
United States Dist. Court, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 2587 (2004)((1) “the party
seeking issuance of the writ [has] no other adequate means to attain the relief
he desires,” (2) “the petitioner [has met] the burden of showing that [his]
right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable,” and (3) “in the
exercise of its discretion, [the court is] satisfied that the writ is
appropriate under the circumstances.”); Toohey v. United States, 60 M.J.
100, 104 (C.A.A.F. 2004)(Crawford, C.J., dissenting).
Misc. No. 05-8008/NA. Troy B. JENKINS, Petitioner, v.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 05-0004/AR.
No. 05-0012/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-024
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0091/NA.
No. 05-0092/MC.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-023
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0090/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-022
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 04-0732/NA.
No. 04-0735/AR.
No. 04-0752/AF.
No. 04-0761/NA.
No. 04-0770/AF.
No. 04-0779/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0088/MC.
No. 05-0089/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 04-0216/AF.
1. All vouchers and/or receipts documenting any payments made by the Air
Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) to Staff Sergeant (SSgt) Davidad
Langley, regardless of whether those payments were related to this case.
2. A list of any regulations other than AFI 71-101, Volume I, paragraph
1.18, relating to the payment of money by AFOSI to informants, sources and/or
cooperating witnesses. The Government will identify whether any such
regulations are classified and, if so, the classification level.
3. An affidavit from AFOSI Special Agent Walb stating whether he had any
conversations with Captain Michael S. Martin concerning payments and/or
reimbursements made by AFOSI to SSgt Davidad Langley and, if so, the content of
those conversations. The affidavit shall also include any information
known to Special Agent Walb concerning payments and/or reimbursements made by
AFOSI to SSgt Langley, regardless of whether the payments and/or reimbursements
specifically related to this case. The affidavit shall include any information
known to Special Agent Walb concerning whether SSgt Langley first learned of
the possibility of receiving incentive pay before or after she testified as a
government witness in the case of United States v. A1C Carl L. Key.
4. An affidavit from SSgt Langley stating what payments and/or
reimbursements she received from AFOSI, regardless of whether they specifically
related to this case. The affidavit shall state whether she first learned
of the possibility of receiving such incentive pay in this or any other case
before or after she testified as a government witness in the case of United
States v. A1C Carl L. Key.
The Government may make any portion of its submission to the Court under
seal. If the Government makes a sealed submission, the Court will
consider whether an appropriate protective order should be issued. See United States v. Abrams, 50 M.J. 361, 364
(C.A.A.F. 1999); United States v. Kinney, 56 M.J. 156 (C.A.A.F. 2001)
(order).
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 05-021
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 05-0080/AR.
No. 05-0081/AR.
No. 05-0082/AR.
No. 05-0083/AF.
No. 05-0084/NA.
No. 05-0085/NA.
No. 05-0086/MC.
No. 05-0087/MC.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 04-0608/AR.
No. 04-0724/AR.
No. 04-0797/AR.
No. 04-8018/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 03-0152/NA.
Home
Page | Opinions & Digest
| Daily
Journal | Scheduled
Hearings | Search
Site