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

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

---

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Sonya M. Watson	No. 10-0468/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Tiffany K. Dewell, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Chad M. Fisher, JA, USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of larceny of government property and making false and fraudulent claims. Granted issue questions whether the Army Court erred when it ruled that Appellant’s administrative discharge was voidable and properly revoked and did not remit the adjudged dismissal.

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

---

Thursday, December 2, 2010

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Caleb B. Beaty	No. 10-0494/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Darrin K. Johns, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Jamie Mendelson, USAFR

Case Summary: GCM conviction of possession of visual depictions which appeared to be a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Granted issue questions whether the sentence must be set aside because the military judge determined the sentence based on the incorrect maximum punishment.

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

---

Monday, December 13, 2010

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Geoffrey L. Sullivan	No. 10-0383/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Jeffrey R. Liebenguth, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Robert E. Eckert, USMC

Case Summary: GCM conviction of carnal knowledge, assault consummated by a battery, communicating a threat, and kidnapping. Granted issues question (1) whether the military judge abused his discretion by excluding relevant evidence that showed the alleged victim had a motive to fabricate her story; and (2) whether the military judge abused his discretion by excluding evidence explaining why Appellant told witnesses that the alleged victim had not taken her medication, leaving the members with the unrebutted impression that Appellant lied about her need for medication to protect himself against allegations of misconduct.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Samuel Lofton III	No. 10-0565/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Nicholas W. McCue, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Joseph J. Kubler, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of dereliction of duty, violation of a general regulation, larceny of military property, conduct unbecoming an officer, indecent assault and absence from a place of duty.  Granted issues question (1) whether the AFCCA erred in holding Appellant’s conviction of Specification 2 of Charge IV for engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer to be legally sufficient; and (2) whether the AFCCA erred in holding it was not an abuse of discretion for the convening authority to deny a defense motion for a post-trial Article 39(a) session after it was discovered that family members of the victims were sending text messages from the courtroom to victims who were sequestered outside the courtroom.  

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

---

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Sergio Soto, Jr.	No. 10-0397/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Brent A. Goodwin, JA , USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Christopher B. Witwer, JA , USA

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of absence without leave, making a false official statement, damaging property, and larceny.  Granted issue questions whether the pretrial agreement contained a prohibited “offer to request a bad - conduct discharge during the sentencing phase” thereby violating Rule for Courts-Martial 705 (c) (1) (B) and public policy.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Tye L. Edwards	No. 10-0481/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Brent A. Goodwin, JA , USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Madeline F. Yanford, JA , USA

Case Summary:GCM conviction of failing to go to appointed place of duty, absenting himself from his unit without authority, willfully disobeying a lawful command from a superior officer, assaulting a superior commissioned officer, willfully disobeying a noncommissioned officer, assaulting three superior noncommissioned officers, escaping from confinement, wrongfully using marijuana, and unlawfully entering a barracks room. Granted issue questions whether there is a substantial basis in law and fact to question Appellant’s plea to escape from confinement given that at the time of the alleged offense he was neither within a confinement facility nor under guard or escort after having been placed in a confinement facility.    

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

---

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Jamaal A. Lewis	No. 10-0484/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: William E. Cassara, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Madeline F. Yanford, JA , USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of murder, aggravated assault murder and attempted robbery. Granted issue questions whether Appellant’s right to due process was violated when the trial counsel asked a defense expert whether he found exculpatory evidence, and argued to the members that the defense expert failed to find exculpatory evidence and failed to find evidence suggesting anyone other than Appellant committed the offenses.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Christopher J. Clark	No. 10-0588/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Nicholas McCue, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Gerald R. Bruce, Esq.

Case Summary: GCM conviction of attempting to communicate with a child under the age of 16 certain indecent language and one charge and specification of using the internet to knowingly transfer sexually explicit electronic images to a person he believed had not attained the age of 16. Granted issues question (1) whether it was plain error for trial counsel to elicit testimony that Appellant did not respond verbally when arrested, and then rely on this testimony during closing argument; and (2) whether the military judge committed constitutional error that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when he overruled defense counsel’s objection during counsel’s improper rebuttal argument.    

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