YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > 2007 TERM > FEBRUARY 2007

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

---

Monday, February 5, 2007 (audio--all cases)

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Jose R. Cabrera-Frattini	No. 07-5001/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Brian Keller , USMC
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Sridhar Kaza, USMC

Case Summary: GCM conviction of carnal knowledge and indecent acts. Certified issue questions whether the Navy – Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously held that the military judge abused his discretion by finding the 13-year old witness unavailable on the basis of mental illness or infirmity, and thus that the military judge had erroneously admitted the witness’ videotaped deposition.

Followed by:

United States v.	Cyrus Young	No. 06-0505/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Scott T. Ayers, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Michael Friess, JA, USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of attempted marijuana distribution, conspiracy, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and distribution of marijuana. Granted issues question: (I) whether the evidence is legally sufficient to prove Charge III, Specification 2 (distribute marijuana); (II) whether Specification 1 of Charge III (possession with intent to distribute marijuana on or about 22 January 2001) is a lesser-included offense of Specification of Charge III (distribution of marijuana on or about 22 January 2001); and (III) whether the dilatory post-trial and Appellate processing warrants relief.

---

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 (audio--all cases)

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Paul H. Schroder	No. 06-0657/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Mary T. Hall, Esquire
Counsel for Appellee: Lt Col Robert V. Combs, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape of a child and indecent acts with a child. Granted issues question: (I) whether the military judge erred in admitting evidence of alleged sexual molestation acts by Appellant involving [S. C.] and [J. R.] and failed to adequately instruct the panel on how to use such evidence; and (II) whether the trial counsel improperly engaged in inflammatory, irrelevant, and prejudicial comments during argument by urging the members during the merits and sentencing to render justice not only for the alleged victims of the charged offenses but for an alleged victim of uncharged misconduct as well.

Followed by:

United States v.	Jeffrey D. Beatty	No. 06-0793/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: William E. Cassara, Esquire
Counsel for Appellee: Lt Col Robert V. Combs, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of indecent liberties and indecent acts with a child. Granted issue questions whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals failed to conduct a proper review under Article 66 (c), UCMJ, because the Court considered evidence outside the record in conducting its factual and legal sufficiency reviews.

---

Monday, February 12, 2007 (audio)

1:00 p.m.

United States v.	Rodolfo Flores	No. 06-0675/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Anthony Yim, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: Major Brian K. Keller, USMC

Case Summary: GCM conviction of larceny and conspiracy. Granted issues question: (I) whether the lower court erred when it held that Appellant did not have standing in order to challenge the Government’s search; (II) whether the military judge erred when he concluded that the Government would have “inevitably discovered” Appellant’s confession.

NOTE: This case will be heard at Southern University Law Center, Baton Rouge Louisiana, as part of the Court’s “Project Outreach” Program.

---

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 (audio pt 1 / pt 2)

10:00 a.m.

United States v.	Isaac D. Roberson	No. 06-0611/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: LT W. Scott Stoebner, USN
Counsel for Appellee: LT Mark H. Herrington, JAGC, USNR

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of larceny, forgery and AWOL. Granted issue questions whether the lower court erred when it determined that the military judge did not abuse his discretion when he excluded substantial testimony of Mr. [M] regarding [D. M. ‘s] motives toward Appellant, Appellant’s fear of [D. M.] and the fact that [D. M.] owned a gun. The following issue is specified by the Court: whether Appellant’s due process rights to a timely review were violated.

NOTE: This case will be heard at The Loyola University School of Law, New Orleans, Louisiana, as part of the Court's "Project Outreach" Program.

---

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 (audio pt 1 / pt 2)

1:00 p.m.

United States v.	Ashontia K. Harrow	No. 06-0474/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Christopher L. Ferretti, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Daniel J. Breen, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of unpremeditated murder by shaking and throwing six-month old daughter, AWOL, stealing insurance proceeds, making false claims, failure to go, wrongfully obtaining telephone services, false official statement, dishonorable failure to pay debt, and falsely signing an official record. Granted issues question: (I) whether the military judge erred by preventing the defense from impeaching the testimony of the deceased baby’s father – the only other person present at the time of the alleged shaking incident – with prior inconsistent statements regarding the baby’s interactions with Appellant and the baby’s crying after Appellant left the house; (II) whether Appellant’s due process rights were violated when it took over four years for the Article 66 review by the court below to be completed; (III) whether the military judge erred by denying a defense motion in limine to exclude the testimony of various witnesses regarding Appellant’s pattern of minor parental abuse where the testimony constituted inappropriate character evidence that was unfairly prejudicial; (IV) whether the military judge erred by allowing the prosecution’s expert witness to present inadmissible profile evidence that placed Appellant in the profiled category and excluded the deceased baby’s father – the only other suspect – from the profiled category. Specified issues question: (V) whether Appellant’s guilty pleas to Charge II and its specification [larceny] were provident; (VI) whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals properly reassessed the sentence when it included a reduction in pay grade that was not adjudged (or authorized).

NOTE: This case will be heard at the Mississippi College School of Law, 151 East Griffith Street, Jackson, Mississippi, as part of the Court’s “Project Outreach” Program. Oral argument will be heard on granted Issues I, III, and IV only.

---

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 (audio--all cases)

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Matthew S. Carr	No. 06-0758/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt John S. Fredland, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Lt Col Robert V. Combs, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of AWOL, dereliction of duty, and seven specifications of indecent assault. Granted issue questions whether Appellant’s pleas of guilty to assaults consummated by battery were improvident because evidence adduced during his providence inquiry indicated that he obtained consent from the alleged victims due to fraud in the inducement, rather than fraud in the factum where he performed gynecological examinations upon females when he was not trained or licensed to perform such examinations.

Followed by:

United States v.	Kelly S. Erickson	No. 06-0715/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Griffin S. Dunham, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Lt Col Robert V. Combs, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape of a child, sodomy of a child, indecent acts with a child, indecent liberties with a child, communicating indecent language to a child, subornation of perjury and violation of a no-contact order. Granted issue questions whether the trial counsel committed plain error during his sentencing argument by comparing Appellant to Osama Bin Laden and Adolph Hitler and by appealing to potential religious biases of the military judge by comparing Appellant to the devil and arguing that Appellant is going to hell.

---

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 (audio--all cases)

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	James E. Bare Jr.	No. 06-0911/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Major John N. Page III, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Col Gerald R. Bruce, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of sodomy with a child under 12, indecent acts with a child, and indecent liberties with a child. Granted issue questions whether, in light of United States v. Berry, 61 M.J. 91 (C. A. A. F. 2005) and United States v. McDonald, 59 M.J. 426 (C. A. A. F. 2004), evidence of uncharged sexual acts between Appellant, when he was an adolescent, and his sister was improperly admitted and materially prejudiced Appellant.

Followed by:

United States v.	Robert D. Tippit	No. 06-0914/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Vicki A. Belleau, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Lt Col Robert V. Combs, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of wrongful Possession of Air Force Police credentials, dereliction of duty, failure to inform guard of, and secure weapons, misuse of a government computer, and making a false claim. Granted issues question: (I) whether the military judge erred in finding there was a “de facto dismissal” of the charges against Appellant on 6 November 2001 that was done for a legitimate reason; (II) whether the military judge erred in finding that Appellant was not denied the right to a speedy trial under Article 10, UCMJ; (III) whether Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial defense counsel did not inform him that an unconditional guilty plea waived the speedy trial issue under R.C.M. 707; and (IV) whether Appellant’s plea was improvident where it was entered upon the mistaken belief that his R.C.M. 707 speedy trial issue would be preserved for appeal.