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

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

---

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

4:00 p.m.

United States v.	William T. Jones III	No. 08-0335/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Bow Bottomly, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: LCDR Sergio Sarkany, JAGC, USN

Case Summary: GCM conviction of knowingly receiving child pornography and misuse of a federal government computer communication system. Granted issues question (1) whether the military judge violated Appellant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment and Rules for Courts-Martial 701 by denying Appellant the opportunity to review the evidence before he pled guilty; and (2) whether the military judge erred by denying Appellant the opportunity to review the evidence before he pled guilty and Appellant’s plea was therefore improvident.

NOTE: This case will be heard at Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York, as part of the Court’s Project Outreach. Each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

---

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

12:00 p.m.:

United States v.	Bruce E. Gooch	No. 10-0251/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Reggie D. Yager, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Naomi N. Porterfield, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of conduct unbecoming an officer, fraternization, and making a false official statement. Granted issues question (1) whether the process for selecting panel members for Appellant’s court-martial was improper in light of Article 25, UCMJ, and United States v. Bartlett, 66 M.J. 426 (C.A.A.F. 2008); (2) whether Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when, after the military judge learned during sentencing deliberations that the members had improperly reconsidered a finding of not guilty to specification two of the additional charge, and after stating that he was inclined to dismiss the specification in order to cure the error, Appellant’s trial defense counsel urged the military judge not to dismiss the specification; and (3) whether the lower court erred in holding that the doctrine of “waiver” and “invited error” barred consideration of Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

NOTE: This case will be heard at Hofstra University School of Law, Hempstead, New York, as part of the Court’s Project Outreach. Each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

---

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Dustin A. Stefan	No. 10-0349/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Jess B. Roberts, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Benjamin M. Owens-Felice, JA, USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of failure to go, violating a lawful written order, damaging military property, possession of marijuana, willfully disobeying a noncommissioned officer, larceny, and burglary. Granted issue questions whether the Appellant must show prejudice to obtain relief where the convening authority received advice on clemency from a person disqualified from doing so by Article 6, UCMJ, and, if so, whether there was prejudice in this case.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Audrey M. Pope	No. 10-0447/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Andrew J. Unsicker, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Nicole P. Wishart, USAF

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of wrongful use of cocaine. Granted issues question (1) whether the military judge abused his discretion by admitting a green detoxification drink under the doctrine of similar physical evidence; (2) whether the military judge committed plain error when he failed to give a limiting instruction that an exhibit was being entered into evidence for illustrative purposes only; (3) whether it was plain error for the military judge to allow trial counsel to elicit testimony on Appellant’s right to remain silent and to allow trial counsel to comment on this during his findings argument; and (4) whether the contested findings and sentence in the present case should be set aside under the cumulative error doctrine.

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