YOU ARE HERE: > HOME > BRIEFS OF GRANTED CASES WITHOUT A HEARING DATE

BRIEFS OF GRANTED CASES WITHOUT A HEARING DATE
(Last Updated 4/9/24)

In descending order, the following cases have been granted by this Court and ordered to file briefs. These cases have not yet been scheduled for hearings. Links to the briefs are provided soon after the briefs have been filed at this Court. Cases will be removed when a hearing date has been scheduled -- see Hearing Calendar -- or when another disposition has been published.

See Daily Journal for complete court proceedings.

---

Friday, March 29, 2024

Certificate for Review

 

No. 24-0125/NA. U.S. v. Jeremy W. Harborth. CCA 202200157. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on the following issues:

 

I.  DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR BY (1) FINDING THE WARRANTLESS SEIZURE OF APPELLEE'S ELECTRONIC DEVICES WAS JUSTIFIED BY PROBABLE CAUSE, AND (2) NOT RULING ON LAW ENFORCEMENT'S RELIANCE ON ACTUAL AND APPARENT AUTHORITY?

 

II. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RULING THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT COULD NOT RELY ON ACTUAL OR APPARENT AUTHORITY AND BY HOLDING THE DELAY IN SECURING A SEARCH AUTHORIZATION WAS UNREASONABLE, THEREBY SETTING ASIDE APPELLEE'S CONVICTIONS?

 

III. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FAILING TO FIND THAT APPELLEE WAIVED OBJECTION TO THE DURATION OF THE SEIZURE, WHEN APPELLEE NEVER OBJECTED AT TRIAL TO THE DURATION OF THE SEIZURE, AND MIL. R. EVID. 311 STATES THAT OBJECTIONS NOT MADE AT TRIAL ARE WAIVED?

 

IV. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FAILING TO FIRST DETERMINE WHETHER MS. HOTEL WAS A GOVERNMENT ACTOR, AND IF SO, DID MS. HOTEL'S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE GOVERNMENT ACTION, THUS IMPLICATING FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION, WHEN SHE SEIZED APPELLEE'S OTHER DEVICES AND PROVIDED THEM TO HPD AND NCIS?

 

V. HAVING FOUND A REASONABLE PROBABILIY THAT A MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE SEIZURE AND SEARCH OF APPELLEE'S IPHONE XS WOULD HAVE BEEN MERITORIOUS, DID THE NMCCA ERR IN NOT FINDING PREJUDICE FROM THE DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT MOVING TO SUPPRESS THIS EVIDENCE?

 

Appellant's brief     Appellee's brief     Appellant's reply brief