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

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

---

Monday, May 16, 2011

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	James N. Fosler	No. 11-0149/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Jeffrey R. Liebenguth, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

Case Summary: GCM conviction of adultery. Granted issue questions whether an Article 134 Clause 1 or 2 specification that fails to expressly allege either potential terminal element states an offense under the Supreme Court’s holdings in United States v. Resendiz-Ponce and Russell v. United States, and this Court’s recent opinions in Medina, Miller and Jones.

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

---

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Joseph A. Sweeney	No. 10-0461/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant:Maj Kirk Sripinyo, USMC
Counsel for Appellee: LCDR Sergio Sarkany, JAGC, USN

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of failure to go to appointed place of duty, unauthorized absence, making a false official statement, and wrongful use of cocaine. Granted issues question whether, in light of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the admission into evidence of the Navy Drug Screening Laboratory urinalysis documents violated Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him, and whether trial defense counsel’s objection to the drug laboratory report constituted a valid Crawford objection and if not, whether trial defense counsel waived or forfeited the confrontation clause issue, and if forfeited, whether admission of the report constituted plain error. An additional specified issue questions whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred as a matter of law in declining to apply Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts in asserting that United States v. Magyari “found drug laboratory reports to be non-testimonial in nature,” and in holding (1) that drug laboratory documents were non-testimonial in nature, (2) that the lab report was a record of a regularly conducted activity of the Navy Drug Screening Laboratory that qualified as a business record and firmly rooted hearsay exception under M.R.E. 803(6), and (3) that there was nothing to suggest that the lab report was generated for court-martial use. See United States v. Blazier, 69 M.J. 218 (C.A.A.F. 2010); United States v. Blazier, 68 M.J. 439 (C.A.A.F. 2010); and United States v. Harcrow, 66 M.J. 154 (C.A.A.F. 2008).

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

---

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

9:30 a.m.

United States v.	Michael A. Prince	No. 11-6003/AR
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Joshua W. Johnson, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Matthew T. Grady, JA, USA

Case Summary: GCM prosecution for aggravated sexual assault and unlawful breaking and entering a barracks room with the intent to commit aggravated sexual assault. Upon a motion by the defense, the military judge suppressed statements made by the accused to an investigator. The government appealed the ruling and the Army Court of Criminal Appeals denied the appeal. The Judge Advocate General of the Army certified the issue of whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming the military judge’s ruling to suppress the accused’s statements to a criminal investigator.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Caleb P. Hohman	No. 11-6004/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Michael R. Torrisi, JAGC, USN
Counsel for Appellee: LT Kevin D. Shea, JAGC, USN

Case Summary: GCM prosecution for involuntary manslaughter, dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful general order. The military judge abated the proceedings due to the severance of the attorney-client relationship between the Appellant and his detailed defense counsel. The government appealed pursuant to Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Navy –Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals granted the government’s appeal. The granted issue questions whether the NMCCA erred in finding good cause for the severance of Sgt Hohman’s attorney-client relationship with his detailed defense counsel where (1) the counsel requested to stay on active duty to represent Sgt Hohman, (2) the government rejected that request and has not demonstrated that it did so due to truly extraordinary circumstances or military exigency, and (3) the military judge did not discuss the counsel’s departure with Sgt Hohman until months after the severance.  

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

---

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

11:00 a.m.

United States v.	Inez T. Martinez	No. 11-0167/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Brent A. Goodwin, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Adam S. Kazin, JA, USA

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of AWOL and being drunk on station. Granted issue questions whether a reasonable person would question the trial judge's impartiality when a senior military judge, who appeared to have assisted the government during trial, entered the trial judge's chambers during recesses and deliberations, in violation of Appellant's right to due process.

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