YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2019 TERM > JUNE 2020

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

---

Tuesday, June 2, 2020 (hearings by teleconference)

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Robert B. Bergdahl	No. 19-0406/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(*audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: Eugene R. Fidell, Esq. (brief)
                                        -------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  CPT Allison Rowley, JA, USA (brief)

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Defense Division

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Law Professors Joshua E. Kastenberg and Rachel E. Vanlandingham

Case Summary: GCM conviction of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. Granted issue questions whether the charges and specifications should be dismissed with prejudice or other meaningful relief granted because of apparent unlawful command influence.

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

---

Wednesday, June 3, 2020 (hearings by teleconference)

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Marco A. Reyes	No. 19-0339/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(*audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: MAJ Benjamin A. Accinelli, JA, USA (brief)
                                              --------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee: CPT Karey B. Marren, JA, USA (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape, sexual assault, conspiracy to obstruct justice, willfully disobeying an officer, larceny, assault consummated by battery, and adultery. Granted issues question: (1) whether the military judge erred in denying the defense motion to dismiss the charges and specifications for a violation of Appellant's right to a speedy trial under Article 10, UCMJ; and (2) whether the record of trial is complete under Article 54, UCMJ, where it contains only a summarized transcript of the Article 39(a), UCMJ, sessions that occurred prior to the withdrawal and re-referral of the charges.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Jason M. Blackburn	No.20-0071/AF
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(*audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Peter F. Kellett, USAF (brief)
                                      ---------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Meghan R. Glines-Barney, USAF (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction of sexual abuse of a child and indecent recordings. The certified issues question: (1) whether under Military Rule of Evidence 311 (d)(2)(A), Appellee waived a basis for suppression that he did not raise at trial; (2) whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred in finding the military judge abused his discretion when he denied the motion to suppress digital evidence pursuant to the good faith exception; (3) whether the military judge properly denied the motion to suppress digital evidence pursuant to Military Rule of Evidence 311 (a)(3), a determination not reviewed by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

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

---

Thursday, June 4, 2020 (hearings by teleconference)

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	R. Bronson Watkins	No.19-0376/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(*audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Daniel Evan Rosinski, JAGC, USN (brief)
                                        ---------------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  LCDR Timothy C. Ceder, JAGC, USN (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction of violating a lawful order, committing a lewd act upon a child, and obstructing justice. Granted issues question: (1) whether a conflict of interest exists where the interests of an attorney and defendant diverge on a material factual or legal issue, or a course of action. Threats by regional trial counsel and a regional trial investigator towards civilian defense counsel created a conflict of interest between civilian counsel and appellant. Did the military judge err in denying civilian counsel's motion to withdraw?; (2) The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused the right to retain counsel of his own choosing. Before trial, and after his civilian counsel moved to withdraw—citing a perceived conflict of interest—appellant asked to release his civilian counsel and hire a different counsel. Did the military judge err by denying this request?; and (3) Did the lower court err in ratifying the military judge's denial of appellant's request for conflict-free counsel, where it: (a) found the request was in "bad faith," based on alleged misbehavior by appellant occurring before the RTC's unexpected threats; and, (b) treated the military judge's finding that appellant's request for counsel was "opportunistic," as a finding of fact instead of a conclusion of law?

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Roberto Armendariz	No. 19-0437/MC
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(*audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Kimberly Rios, JAGC, USN (brief)
                                        ------------------------------ (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Tami L. Mitchell, Esq. (brief)

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Sharon Fairley, Tiberius Davis, Brian Sanders, and Michael Zakrajsek

Case Summary: GCM conviction of fraternization. The certified issues question: (1) whether the lower court erred in overturning the military judge's admission of evidence where the military judge found that the official who authorized the search was the acting commander with full authority and control over the remain behind element, except for authority to impose nonjudicial punishment and convene courts-martial; (2) whether the lower court erroneously applied the exclusionary rule under Mil. R. Evid. 311(a)(3) by failing to appropriately balance the benefits of deterrence against the costs to the justice system, and thereby erred in overturning the military judge's decision not to apply the exclusionary rule; and (3) whether the lower court erred in finding the good-faith exception did not apply where this court has, in United States v. Chapple, 36 M.J. 410 (C.M.A. 1993), held the exception applies even when the individual issuing that search authorization lacked authority under Mil. R. Evid. 315(d)(1), and here law enforcement reasonably believed the acting commander was authorized to issue search authorizations.

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