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

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

---

Monday, March 7, 2011

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Mervyn W. Oliver	No. 11-0089/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Tiffany K. Dewell, JA , USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Kenneth W. Borgnino, JA , USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of desertion. Granted issue questions whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the finding of guilty to desertion.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Bryant K. Marsh	No. 11-0123/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt A. Jason Nef, JA , USA
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Sara M. Root, JA , USA

Case Summary: GCM conviction of making a false official statement.  Granted issues question 1) whether it was plain error for trial counsel to argue that the panel should draw adverse inferences from Appellant’s failure to testify under oath during presentencing because Appellant would not answer her questions or theirs; and 2) whether trial counsel sought to inflame the passions of the 82nd Airborne panel by implying that Appellant’s false official statement during a rape investigation puts pilots’ lives in danger.   

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

---

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

9:30 a.m.

Frank D. Wuterich v.	David L. Jones	No. 11-8009/MC
(Appellant)	(Appellees)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant:Col Dwight H. Sullivan, USMCR
Counsel for Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

Case Summary: GCM prosecution for voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and obstruction of justice.  At trial, the Appellant moved to dismiss the charges or for other relief arising from the loss of one of his defense counsel.  The military judge denied the motion, finding good cause to sever the attorney-client relationship due to a conflict of interest.  Appellant filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.  The court denied the petition without prejudice to Appellant’s right to raise the issue during the ordinary course of appellate review.  On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the court remanded the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration of the transcripts of the Article 39(a) sessions and the issue of whether the military judge abused his discretion in determining that good cause existed to sever the attorney-client relationship.  Upon further review, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the military judge did not abuse his discretion, and it returned the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for further proceedings.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Rory J. Schuber	No. 11-6002/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Major Reggie D. Yager, USAF
Counsel for Appellee: Major Charles G. Warren, USAF

Case Summary: Appellant was arraigned at a general court-martial on two specifications: wrongful use of methamphetamine and wrongful use of marijuana. The military judge dismissed the charge and specifications for lack of speedy trial under Article 10, UCMJ. The government appealed under Article 62, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals granted the appeal, set aside the judge’s ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings.  Appellant then petitioned this Court for review and requested a stay of proceedings. This Court granted the motion to stay. The Court granted the assigned issue which questions whether the CCA erred by reversing the military judge and finding the government met its burden under Article 10, UCMJ. The Court also granted review of the issue of whether Article 10, UCMJ, should have been applied by the military judge and the Court of Criminal Appeals when the accused had been released from confinement after 71 days, allowed to return home on leave for 3 days, and when he returned, was only subject to base restriction, a restriction that was not tantamount to confinement.

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