YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2018 TERM > MARCH 2019

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

---

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Joshua D. Lewis	No. 19-0109/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(*audio -- wma mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Benjamin J. Wetherell, JA, USA
                                         ------------------------ (supplement) (reply)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Allison L. Rowley, JA, USA (answer)    

Case Summary: At court-martial, the Military Judge ruled that the accused's third statement to investigators was involuntary under Military Rule of Evidence 304. The United States appealed this ruling under Article 62, UCMJ, and the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals held that this ruling was an abuse of discretion.

This Court then granted Appellant's petition for grant of review of the following issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he suppressed SPC Lewis's third statement as involuntary under Military Rule of Evidence 304.

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

Followed by:

Nidal M. Hasan v.	U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and United States	No.19-0054/AR
(Petitioner)	(Respondent) (Real Party in Interest)	(*audio -- wma) (*audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant (Petitioner): Capt Bryan A. Osterhage, JA, USA
Counsel for Appellee (Respondent):  Capt Allison L. Rowley, JA, USA

Brief -- Petition for Extraordinary Relief
Brief -- Government Answer to the Petition for Extraordinary Relief
Brief -- Petitioner Reply To Government Answer to the Petition
Brief -- Government Response to 4 Feb 2019 Show Cause Order
Brief -- Petitioner Reply to Gov't Response to 4 Feb 2019 Order

Case Summary: Petitioner was convicted of thirteen specifications of premeditated murder and thirty-two specifications of attempted murder. He was sentenced to a dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and death. A petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus was filed with this Court, whose prayer for relief orders the judges of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals to disqualify themselves from Petitioner's case.

Argument has been ordered on the issues of whether the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it denied Petitioner's recusal motion; and whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has jurisdiction to provide the requested relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus.

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