YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > SEPTEMBER 2009 TERM > OCTOBER 2009

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

---

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Raheem H. Green	No. 09-0133/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Heather L. Cassidy, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Mark V. Balfantz, USMC

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of failing to obey a Chief Warrant Officer, assault, indecent assault, indecent language, use of ecstasy, and sexual harassment. Granted issue questions whether the lower court erred when it held that Appellant’s utterance of “mmmm-mmmm-mmmm” was legally sufficient to support a conviction for indecent language.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument in this case.

Followed by:

United States v.	Patrick P. Campbell	No. 08-0660/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Dillon J. Ambrose, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: Col Louis J. Puleo, USMC

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of violating a general order and possession of child pornography. Granted issues question (1) whether the lower court erred in reassessing Appellant’s sentence, as (a) its reassessment calculus was based upon an erroneous understanding of what specifications were merged; (b) it abused its discretion in failing to order a sentence rehearing in light of Appellant being sentenced upon twice the amount of specifications as appropriate; and (c) the underlying logic used to not reduce Appellant’s sentence was faulty; (2) whether the lower court erred in finding that possession of the same images of child pornography on different media can be charges as separate crimes under 18 USC § 2252A; and (3) whether the lower court erred in determining that the three specifications under Charge II were not “facially duplicative.”
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument in this case.

---

Thursday, October 8, 2009

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Michael J. Smith	No. 09-0169/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Alison L. Gregoire, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Karen J. Borgerding, JA, USAR

Case Summary: GCM conviction of conspiracy to commit maltreatment, maltreatment, dereliction of duty, and indecent acts. Granted issues question (1) whether the military judge erred by failing to instruct on obedience to lawful orders as it pertained to maltreatment by having a military working dog (MWD) bark at a detainee when there was no evidence before the military judge that such an order was illegal; (2) whether the military judge erred when he did not instruct the panel on obedience to orders (lawful or unlawful) as it pertained to maltreatment by having a MWD bark at juvenile detainees; and (3) whether the evidence for all maltreatment specifications was legally insufficient, because the detainees were not “subject to [Appellant’s] orders” and did not have a “duty to obey.”

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument in this case.

Followed by:

United States v.	Jerry J. Ediger	No. 08-0757/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Elizabeth Turner, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Sarah J. Rykowski, JA, USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape of a child and making a false official statement. Granted issue questions whether the military judge erred in admitting the testimony of TG under Military Rules of Evidence 413 and 414.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument in this case.

---

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Rogelio M. Maynulet	No. 09-0073/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Frank J. Spinner, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: Capt James T. Dehn, JA, USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter. Granted issue questions whether the military judge erred when he refused to instruct the members on the defense of mistake of law.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument in this case.

Followed by:

United States v.	Derrick M. Williams	No. 08-0339/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Tiffany M. Wagner, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt G. Matt Osborn, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of assault, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, reckless driving, fleeing apprehension, escaping confinement, and desertion. Granted issues question (1) whether, having found knowing violations of AFI 31-205, the military judge erred in not determining that the violation involved an abuse of discretion warranting credit under RCM 305(k); and (2) whether the conditions of Appellant’s pretrial confinement in suicide watch, which included, inter alia, denial of books, a radio, and/or a CD player, and 24-hour-a-day lighting, were so excessive that they constitute punishment in violation of Article 13, UCMJ, and thus, Appellant is entitled to additional sentence credit.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument in this case.

---

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Sabrina D. Harman	No. 08-0804/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Frank J. Spinner, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Teresa T. Phelps, JA, USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of conspiracy to commit maltreatment, maltreatment, and dereliction of duty. Granted issue questions whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the findings of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument in this case.

Followed by:

United States v.	Adam D. Douglas	No. 09-0466/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Terri R. Zimmermann, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: Gerald R. Bruce, Esq.

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of dereliction of duty, failure to go, violation of a general order, making a false official statement, distribution of methamphetamine, carnal knowledge, and sodomy with a child. Granted issue questions whether the military judge reversibly erred when she did not dismiss the charges and specifications after she found that unlawful command influence existed in this case.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument in this case.