YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > SEPTEMBER 2010 TERM > OCTOBER 2010

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

---

Monday, October 4, 2010

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	John C. Alston	No. 10-0172/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Lt Col Jonathan F. Potter, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Madeline F. Yanford, JA, USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape. Granted issue questions whether the military judge, over Appellant’s objection, erroneously instructed the panel that aggravated sexual assault was a lesser included offense of rape by force.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Ivor G. Luke	No. 05-0157/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Michael R. Torrisi, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

Case Summary: GCM conviction of indecent assault. Granted issues question (1) whether the results of Appellant’s trial are not reliable in light of newly-discovered evidence; (2) whether the military judge erred when he found the government was not required to disclose evidence prepared for use on re-direct examination of a government witness; and (3) whether Appellant’s due process rights have been violated by the untimely post-trial processing and appellate review of his court-martial.

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

---

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Timothy J. Staton	No. 10-0237/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: William E. Cassara, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Joseph T. Kubler, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of assault consummated by battery upon a child. Granted issue questions whether the military judge abused his discretion in admitting evidence that Appellant may have attempted to kill or injure the original trial counsel.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Chantay P. White	No. 10-0182/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Phillip T. Korman, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Charles G. Warren, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of making a false official statement. Granted issues question (1) whether the military judge abused his discretion and violated Appellant’s right to due process and a fair trial by erroneously excluding as irrelevant Appellant’s previously completed Army credentialing forms which provided insight into Appellant’s intent completing such credentialing forms; and (2) whether the trial judge abused his discretion and denied Appellant due process and her right to a fair trial by erroneously excluding relevant lay opinions of Question D on Section VIII of AF Form (FM) 1540.

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

---

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Yolanda Flores	No. 10-0332/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Andrew J. Unsicker, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Charles G. Warren, USAF

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of violating a lawful general order by wrongfully taking photographs and a video of detainees, violating a lawful general order by wrongfully fraternizing with detainees, and making a false official statement. Granted issue questions whether the trial counsel improperly commented on Appellant’s constitutional right to remain silent thus depriving Appellant of a fair trial.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Lawrence G. Hutchins	No. 10-5003/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Mark Balfantz, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Jeffrey R. Liebenguth, USMC

Case Summary: GCM conviction of unpremeditated murder, conspiracy, larceny, and making a false official statement. Certified issues question (1) whether the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appears erred in finding, inter alia, that the military judge severed the attorney-client relationship with Captain Bass; (2) whether under R.C.M. 505(d)(2)(b), the Navy-Marine Corps Court incorrectly found no “good cause” on the record for the replacement of Appellant’s second detailed defense counsel with another counsel; and (3) whether the lower court applied the wrong standard and erroneously presumed, without assessing, prejudice and set aside the findings and sentence, where Appellant’s statutory rights, and constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, were satisfied throughout trial.

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