YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > SEPTEMBER 2014 TERM > MAY 2015

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

---

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

9:00 a.m.:

United States v.	Michael E. Sullivan	No.15-0186/CG
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Eugene R. Fidell, Esq. (brief) (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  LCDR Amanda M. Lee, USCG (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction of use of cocaine. Granted issues question: (1) whether the Government carried its burden of proving that the convening authority's categorical exclusion of all flag officers was harmless; and (2) whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying challenges from both parties to his impartiality based on prior personal relationships with individual military counsel, the accused, trial counsel, several members, several witnesses, and the Staff Judge Advocate.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Christopher A. Quick	No.15-0347/MC
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: LT James M. Belforti, JAGC, USN (brief)                                                   ---------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee: Capt David A. Peters, USMC (brief)    

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Air Force Appellate Government Division

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Air Force Appellate Defense Division

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Coast Guard Government Appellate Division

Case Summary: GCM conviction of conspiracy to distribute indecent material, wrongfully viewing indecent material, and indecent conduct. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the guilty findings of conspiracy to distribute indecent material and indecent conduct, but it set aside and dismissed the guilty finding of wrongfully viewing indecent material. The court then set aside the sentence and remanded the case for a rehearing on sentence only. Certified issue questions whether precedent authorizing courts of criminal appeals to order sentence-only rehearings should be overruled based on: (A) Jackson v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 569 (1957), which stated "no [such] authority" exists; (B) the plain language of the statute including the conjunctive "findings and sentence" in Article 66(d) in contrast to authority granted the Judge Advocates General in Article 69(a) to act with respect to "findings or sentence or both" and the convening authority in Article 60 (f) (3) to order sentence rehearings; and, (C) judicial economy.

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