YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > SEPTEMBER 2013 TERM > SEPTEMBER 2013

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

---

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Douglas K. Winckelmann	No. 11-0280/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Frank J. Spinner, Esq (brief)                    
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Jessica J. Morales, JA, USA (brief)

Case Summary: The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed guilty findings to attempted enticement of a minor, indecent acts, obstruction of justice and conduct unbecoming an officer. Granted issue questions whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, after disapproving the findings of guilty for Charge IV and its Specifications (indecent language) and after considering this Court's decision dismissing Specification 3 of Charge III, erred by reassessing Appellant's sentence to confinement, first from 31 years to 20 years (in the initial decision), and then from 20 years to 11 years (in a subsequent decision), rather than directing a sentence rehearing.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Timothy L. Merritt	No. 13-0283/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: William E. Cassara, Esq. (brief)                 
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Joseph Kubler, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for receiving and viewing child pornography. Granted issues question: (1) whether Appellant's constitutional right to fair notice that an act is criminal was violated in Specification 2 of the Charge, where the alleged offense occurred in May 2006 but Congress did not criminalize the intentional viewing of child pornography until October 2008; and (2) whether Appellant's due process right to timely appellate review was violated where the Air Force Court decided Appellant's case one thousand and twenty-four days after it was docketed.

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

---

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Gary D. Warner	No. 13-0435/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Susrut A. Carpenter, JA, USA  (brief)
                                       --------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Kenneth W. Borgnino, JA, USA (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of possession of child pornography, possession of images of minors as sexual objects or in a sexual suggestive way, obstruction of justice, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Granted issues question: (1) whether Specification 3 of Charge I is void for vagueness because the Appellant was not given fair notice that the charged conduct of possessing "sexually suggestive" material of minors as "sexual objects" was forbidden and subject to criminal action; and (2) whether Specification 3 of Charge I is legally insufficient when the government failed to prove that the possession of constitutionally protected images of minors as sexual objects and in sexually suggestive poses had a direct and palpable effect on the military mission and therefore was actually service discrediting as required by United States v. Wilcox, 66 M.J. 442 (C.A.A.F. 2008).

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Amanda M. Moss	No. 13-0348/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Ian M. Guy, JA, USA (brief)
                               ------------------------------- (reply brief)                                     ------------------ (specified issue brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Steve T. Nam, JA, USA (brief)
                                ------------------ (specified issue brief)

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of desertion. Granted issues question: (1) whether Appellant was denied her Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel where the defense counsel made an unsworn statement on her behalf when she was tried in absentia and there is no evidence that she consented to the unsworn statement; (2) whether Appellant was deprived of her right to conflict-free counsel when her defense counsel made an unsworn statement without her consent and subsequently invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and failed to assert that Appellant was prejudiced; (3) whether the military judge committed plain error when he allowed the defense counsel to make an unsworn statement on behalf of Appellant when she was tried in absentia; and (4) whether the military judge abused his discretion when he found that there was no prejudice when the defense counsel read an unsworn statement without Appellant's consent and then failed to instruct the panel to disregard the unsworn statement and Sergeant First Class M's rebuttal testimony.

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