YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > SEPTEMBER 2009 TERM > JANUARY 2010
United States Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces
450 E Street, Northwest Washington D.C. 20442-0001
9:30 am
United States v.
James W. Sutton No. 09-0458/AF (Appellee) (Appellant) (audio) Counsel for Appellant: Gary Myers, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Joseph Kubler, USAFCase Summary: GCM conviction of soliciting indecent liberties. Granted issue questions whether the military judge erred in denying the defense motion to suppress Appellant’s oral and written statements based on a violation of Article 31, UCMJ; an issue specified by the Court questions whether the facts charged in the specification are sufficient as a matter of law to support a charge for solicitation of indecent liberties with a child under Article 134, UCMJ, where the person solicited was that child.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 20 minutes to present oral argument.
Followed by:
United States v.
James M. Green No. 09-0523/AF (Appellee) (Appellant) (audio) Counsel for Appellant: Capt Andrew J. Unsicker, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Michael T. Rakowski, USAFCase Summary: GCM conviction of sodomy of a child, assault of a child and indecent acts with a child. Granted issues question (1) whether Appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel; and (2) whether the lower court abused its discretion in failing to grant Appellant’s request for CM’s mental health records from Lakeside Behavioral Health System.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 20 minutes to present oral argument.
9:30 am
United States v.
Benjamin W. Ross No. 09-0242/MC (Appellee) (Appellant) (audio) Counsel for Appellant: LT Sarah E. Harris, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: LCDR Paul D. Bunge, JAGC, USNCase Summary: GCM conviction of knowingly and wrongfully possessing visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Granted issue questions whether by finding the Appellant guilty of the Charge and specification except for the words “on divers occasions,” the military judge rendered ambiguous findings not capable of review under Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 20 minutes to present oral argument.
Followed by:
United States v.
Christopher J. Roberts No. 10-0030/AF (Appellee) (Appellant) (audio) Counsel for Appellant: Maj Darrin K. Johns, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Jaime Mendelson, USAFRCase Summary: GCM conviction of rape, assault, and communicating a threat. Granted issue questions whether the military judge’s denial of Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness against him was harmless error when the judge prohibited Appellant from demonstrating that his wife, the alleged rape victim, had a motive to fabricate the issue of consent based on her extramarital romantic relationship that gave her an incentive to either get Appellant out of the picture or protect her extramarital relationship.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 20 minutes to present oral argument.
9:30 a.m.
United States v.
Charles S. Roach No. 07-0870/AF (Appellee) (Appellant) (audio) Counsel for Appellant: Dwight H. Sullivan, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: Gerald R. Bruce, Esq.Case summary: SPCM conviction of use of cocaine and willful dereliction of duty by misuse of government travel card. Granted issues question (1) whether the Air Force Court erred by refusing to vacate its ruling in light of the actions of the Chief Judge regarding the appointment of his replacement after he had recused himself; (2) whether the Air Force Court erred by basing its sentence disparity analysis on Appellant’s and his co-actor’s adjudged sentences rather than their approved sentences; (3) whether the Air Force Court erred by denying Appellant’s motion to compel production of e-mails sent between the Chief Judge and Appellate Government Counsel about this case following the Chief Judge’s recusal; (4) whether Appellant’s due process right to reasonably prompt Appellate review was denied by the delay in this appeal arising from the Air Force Court’s processing of this appeal during its initial review.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 20 minutes to present oral argument.
Followed by:
United States v.
Andrew J. Ferguson No. 10-0020/AF (Appellee) (Appellant) (audio) Counsel for Appellant: Capt Jennifer J. Raab, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Joseph J. Kubler, USAFCase summary: GCM conviction of attempting to transfer obscene materials to a minor, communicating indecent language to a person believed to be a minor, indecent exposure and possession of child pornography. Granted issue questions whether Appellant’s plea to indecent exposure was provident.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 20 minutes to present oral argument.
9:30 a.m.
United States v.
Joshua C. Blazier No. 09-0441/AF (Appellee) (Appellant) (audio) Counsel for Appellant: Capt Marla J. Gillman, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Gerald R. Bruce, Esq.Case summary: GCM conviction of use of ecstasy, methamphetamine, and marijuana and dereliction of duty. Granted issue questions whether, in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), Appellant was denied meaningful cross-examination of government witnesses in violation of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the military judge did not compel the government to produce essential Brooks Lab officials who handled Appellant’s urine samples and instead allowed the expert toxicologist to testify to non-admissible hearsay. See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009).
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 20 minutes to present oral argument.
Followed by:
United States v.
Robert C. Huntzinger No. 09-0589/AR (Appellee) (Appellant) (audio) Counsel for Appellant: Lt Col Matthew M. Miller, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt James M. Hudson, JA, USACase summary: GCM conviction of possession of adult and child pornography. Granted issues question (1) whether the military judge erred in concluding that no soldier at Forward Operating Base (FOB) loyalty had reasonable expectation of privacy in any regard; (2) whether the military judge erred in denying a motion to suppress Appellant’s external hard drive and password protected laptop when the commander who ordered the seizure of the equipment immediately searched the equipment upon seizure, demonstrating that he was performing law enforcement functions and was not neutral and detached when seizing the items; (3) whether the doctrine of inevitable discovery is applicable when there are no independent police activities, or testimony or evidence of routine police practices, that would have inevitably resulted in discovery, and no other exception to the Fourth Amendment applies.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allowed 20 minutes to present oral argument.
| Hearings have been scheduled on the following dates. All scheduled hearings will include case summaries. These hearings will be held in the courtroom located on the second floor of the Courthouse, 450 E Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20442-0001, unless otherwise noted. Audio recordings of hearings normally will be available on this page the day following the hearing.
|
(202) 761-1448 / DSN 763-1448 • (202) 761-4672 fax