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

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

---

Monday, March 12, 2007 (audio--all cases)

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Jason A. Rader	No. 06-0860/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Lt Col Frank R. Levi, USAFR
Counsel for Appellee: Col Gerald R. Bruce, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of receiving child pornography, and violating 18 U.S.C. 1462. Granted issue questions whether the military judge erred in admitting evidence at trial that was obtained as a direct result of an illegal search of Appellant’s personal computer.

Followed By:

United States v.	Terrel L. Lewis	No. 07-5002/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Adam S. Kazin, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Frank B. Ulmer, JA, USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon. Granted issue questions whether the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it ruled that the military judge erred in refusing to instruct the panel that a mutual combatant could regain the right to self defense when the opposing party escalates the level of conflict, even if Appellant does not withdraw in good faith, as required by Rule for Courts Martial 916 (e) (4).

---

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 (audio--all cases)

9:00 a.m.

United States v.	Malcolm M. Mack	No. 06-0943/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Brian L. Mizer, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Roger E. Mattioli, USMC

Case Summary: GCM conviction of conspiracy to obstruct justice, breaking restriction, and obstruction of justice. Granted issues question: (I) whether the lower court erred by holding that the military judge’s decision to submit the issue of the lawfulness of Appellant’s restriction order to the members was harmless; (II) whether the evidence is legally sufficient to prove that Appellant conspired with John Doe to obstruct justice where there is no evidence in the record that John Doe ever existed; and (III) whether Appellant was denied due process of law where the lower court decided Appellant’s case 1,830 days after his court-martial.


Followed By:

United States v.	David F. Moran	No. 06-0207/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Anthony D. Ortiz, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Jamie L. Mendelson, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of drunk driving, use of ecstasy, cocaine and LSD, and obstruction of justice. Original granted issue questions whether Appellant’s substantial rights were materially prejudiced when prosecution witnesses and trial counsel commented on Appellant’s request for an attorney and Appellant’s refusal to give consent for a search and seizure of his hair and blood. Specified Issues question: (I) whether evidence reflecting the accused’s exercise of constitutional rights was admissible as part of the background sequence or chronology of events leading to the seizure or discovery of otherwise admissible evidence; and (II) if evidence of the accused’s exercise of his constitutional rights was admissible for purposes of establishing background sequence or chronology without objection, was it plain error if no instruction was given advising the members that the evidence could not be considered as evidence of guilt or criminal conduct.

---

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 (audio)

1:00 p.m.

United States v.	David A. Leedy	No. 06-0567/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj John N. Page III, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Matthew Ward, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of possessing and receiving child pornography. Granted issue questions whether the military judge erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from Appellant’s computer where the affidavit in support of the search did not contain any description of the substance of the images suspected to depict “sexually explicit conduct.”

NOTE: This case will be heard at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 3900 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as part of the Court’s “Project Outreach” Program.

---

Thursday, March 15, 2007 (audio pt 1 / pt 2)

3:00 p.m.

United States v.	Harvey A. Gardinier II	No-06-0591/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Seth A. Director, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Philip M. Staten, JA, USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of indecent liberties with a child and indecent acts with a child. Granted issues question: (I) whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it held that evidence of Appellant’s guilt was so great as to make admission of K.G.’s videotaped testimony harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (II) whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it held that the testimony of V.S. [Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner] was not testimonial hearsay requiring that the declarant be subject to cross-examination as required by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (III) whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in finding that the CID agent’s failure to advise Appellant of his Article 31 (b) rights on 3 January 2002 did not constitute legal error.

NOTE: This case will be heard at the Duquesne University School of Law, 600 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as part of the Court’s “Project Outreach” Program.