YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2017 TERM > DECEMBER 2017

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

---

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Joshua Katso	No.17-0326/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Patrick A. Clary, USAF (brief)                                                   --------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Tyler B. Musselman, USAF (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction of aggravated sexual assault, burglary, and unlawful entry. The Judge Advocate General certified the following issues: (1) whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it held that United States v. Miller, 47 M.J. 352 (C.A.A.F. 1997) required the government to hold a continued confinement hearing within 7 days of the Judge Advocate General's decision on certification; (2) whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it found that government's failure to hold a continued confinement hearing within 7 days of the Judge Advocate General's decision on certification automatically resulted in a day-for-day sentencing credit; and (3) whether Appellee was prejudiced when the government failed to hold a continued confinement hearing within 7 days of certification.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Ricky D. Chisum	No.17-0199/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Jarett Merk, USAF (sealed brief)                                                  ---------------- (sealed reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Mary Ellen Payne, USAF (redacted brief)    

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Protect Our Defenders

Case Summary: SPCM conviction of using cocaine. Granted issue questions whether the military judge's failure to conduct an in camera review of the mental health records of AB AK and AB CR deprived Appellant of his right to confront the sole witnesses against him in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

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

---

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Koda M. Harpole	No.17-0171/CG
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Jason W. Roberts, USCG (brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  LT Connor B. Simpson, USCG (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction of making a false official statement, aggravated sexual assault, and housebreaking. Granted issues question: (1) whether the military judge abused her discretion when she allowed a victim advocate to testify as to Appellant's privileged communications, in violation of M.R.E. 514; (2) whether the trial defense counsel were ineffective by failing to suppress Appellant's unwarned admissions. These admissions were made to YNI NIPP when she knew he was a suspect and under investigation. She intended to report these admissions to the command and questioned him without advising him of his Art. 31 UCMJ, rights; and (3) Upon request by the defense counsel and using a defense-drafted instruction, should the military judge have provided the members with an explanation of the term "incapable"?

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Robert L. Honea III	No.17-0347/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Brian L. Mizer, Esq. (brief unsealed)
                                      ------------------------------ (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Tyler B. Musselman, USAF (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction of assault consummated by a battery. Granted issues question the following: (1) immediately before the defense rested its case, the military judge invited the parties' attention to R.C.M. 910, and directed the defense to provide the military judge with a draft specification of assault consummated by a battery. Did the lower court err when it held that the defense's compliance with the military judge's directive constituted a de facto defense request to modify the specification pursuant to R.C.M. 603 where there is no evidence that either the defense or the convening authority were aware the charge was being amended pursuant to R.C.M. 603?; (2) The military judge dismissed Specification 2 of Charge II, abusive sexual contact by causing bodily harm, for failure to state an offense, but she allowed the government to proceed to trial on the purported lesser included offense of assault consummated by a battery. Did the military judge err?

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