YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > SEPTEMBER 2010 TERM > JANUARY 2011

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

---

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	William R. Savala	No. 10-0317/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Philip Cave, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Mark Balfantz, USMCA

Case Summary: GCM Conviction of rape, unlawful entry, attempted larceny and adultery.  Granted issue questions whether the lower court erred when it held that the denial of Appellant’s right to cross-examine his accuser was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Ryan D. Humphries	No. 10-5004/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Coretta E. Gray, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Nicholas W. McCue, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of adultery and sodomy. Certified issue questions whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred in finding Appellee’s sentence inappropriately severe under the unique circumstances of this case and erred in an attempt at exercising appellate clemency by remanding the case to the convening authority with instructions that the convening authority may approve an adjudged sentence no greater than a suspended bad-conduct discharge and a reduction to the grade of E-1.   

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

---

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Raymond L. Girouard	No. 10-0642/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Daniel Marino, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Adam S. Kazin, JA , USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of negligent homicide, conspiracy, obstructing justice and violating a lawful general order.  Granted issue questions whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in failing to dismiss Appellant’s negligent homicide conviction pursuant to this Court’s opinion in United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010), because negligent homicide is not a lesser included offense to murder

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Stephen H. Bonner	No. 10-0567/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Darrin K. Johns, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Coretta E. Gray, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction of fraudulent enlistment, violation of a lawful order, possession and use of controlled substances, wrongful sexual contact, indecent exposure and assault. Granted issue questions whether in light of this Court’s recent decision in United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 456 (C.A.A.F. 2010), the trial court erred in finding Appellant guilty of assault consummated by a battery as a lesser included offense of wrongful sexual contact.

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

---

Monday, January 24, 2011

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Alan D. Eslinger	No. 10-0537/AR &       11-5002/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Jess B. Roberts, JA , USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Joshua W. Johnson, JA , USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of possession of child pornography.  Granted issue questions whether the military judge committed plain error by permitting the Government to offer evidence in the form of opinion testimony from senior officer and NCO witnesses with no personal knowledge of Appellant’s duty performance to opine that he should be separated from the Army and Special Forces.  Certified issue questions (1) whether the restrictions under RCM 1001(b)(5) apply to rebuttal evidence submitted under RCM 1001 (d); and (2) whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in finding that the military judge committed plain and obvious error when he permitted introduction of Government rebuttal testimony to defense “retention evidence” when there was no defense objection.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Justin H. McMurrin	No. 11-5001/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Col Louis J. Puleo, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Michael Berry, USMC

Case Summary: GCM conviction of conspiracy to possess cocaine, violation of an order, use of cocaine, obstruction of justice, and negligent homicide.  Certified issue questions whether the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals erred by setting aside the conviction for negligent homicide as an erstwhile lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter on the grounds of constitutionally insufficient notice without testing for prejudice per footnote 11 of United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465, 473 (C.A.A.F. 2010).  

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

---

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	David C. Ellerbrock	No. 10-0483/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Barbara A. Snow-Martone, JA , USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Frank E. Kostik, Jr., JA , USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of conspiracy, larceny, destruction of military property, housebreaking, rape and forcible sodomy.  Granted issues question (1) whether the military judge erred in excluding, under MRE 412, evidence of prior sexual behavior by the alleged victim where the proffered evidence was constitutionally required; and (2) whether the balancing test, as articulated in MRE 412(c)(3) and United States v. Banker, 60 M.J. 216 (C.A.A.F. 2004), is constitutional.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Troy D. Gaddis	No. 10-0512/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: LtCol D. Linden Barber, JA , USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Christopher B. Witwer, JA , USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of sodomy and indecent acts upon a female under the age of sixteen years.>Granted issues question (1) whether the military judge erred by denying Appellant the opportunity to present evidence that his accuser had a motive to fabricate the allegations against him to hide the accuser’s sexual activity with others from the accuser’s mother; and (2) whether the balancing test, as articulated in MRE 412(c)(3) and United States v. Banker, 60 M.J. 216 (C.A.A.F. 2004), is constitutional.

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