YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2020 TERM > DECEMBER 2020

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

---

Tuesday, December 1, 2020

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Darrius D. Upshaw	No. 20-0176/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Clifton E. Morgan III, JAGC, USN (brief)
                                                 ------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  LT Joshua C. Fiveson, JAGC, USN (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of abusive sexual contact. Granted issues question (1) was the military judge's improper propensity instruction, in violation of United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016), harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt?; and (2) was a recused judge's substantive participation in Appellant's case after he recused himself harmless error?

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

10:45 a.m.:

United States v.	Ryan G. Uribe	No. 20-0267/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Amanda E. Dermady, USAF (brief)
                                                   ------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Jessica Delaney (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction of sexual assault. Granted issue questions whether the lower court erred in finding the military judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a joint motion to recuse.

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

---

Wednesday, December 2, 2020

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Koda M. Harpole	No. 20-0142/CG
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3 wma)

Counsel for Appellant: LCDR Jason W. Roberts, USCG (brief)
                                                    ----------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  LT Nicholas J. Hathaway, USCG (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of making a false official statement, sexual assault, and housebreaking. Granted issues question (1) was the victim advocate required to advise Appellant of his rights under Article 31(b), UCMJ?; (2) were trial defense counsel ineffective when they failed to move to suppress Appellant's statement to the victim advocate when such statement was taken in violation of Article 31(b), UCMJ?

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

10:45 a.m.: (Postponed pending further order of the Court)

United States v.	Justin D. Steen	No. 20-0206/CG
(Appellee)	(Appellant)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Carolyn Bray, USCG (brief)
                                                --------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  LT Nicholas Hathaway, USCG (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction of wrongful introduction and distribution of marijuana. Granted issue states: MRE 404(b) protects the accused's right to a fair trial by excluding prejudicial propensity evidence. The military judge erroneously admitted propensity evidence and instructed the members to consider evidence for an improper purpose. Did this error prejudice Appellant?

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