United States Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces
450 E Street, Northwest Washington D.C. 20442-0001
Tuesday March 28, 2023
United States v.
|Nidal M. Hasan
|| (audio Pt 1 --
(audio Pt 2 --
Counsel for Appellant: Jonathan F. Potter, Esq.
MAJ Bryan A. Osterhage, JA, USA
(redacted brief) (redacted reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee: MAJ Jennifer A. Sundook, JA, USA
CPT Timothy R. Emmons, JA, USA
------------------------------ (redacted brief)
Summary: GCM conviction for premediated murder and attempted murder. Granted issues question (1) whether the total closure of the Court over Appellant's objection violated his right to a public trial? (2) whether the military judge erred by failing to disqualify Lieutenant Colonel Garwold as a panel member? (3) assuming arguendo that Article 45(b) is constitutional, whether its application in this case nonetheless constituted reversible error; and (4) whether the judges of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals should have been recused because they were supervised by then-Major General Stuart Risch while his error as the Staff Judge Advocate was pending litigation before them?
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 80 minutes to present oral argument.
Wednesday, March 29, 2023
United States v.
|James T. Cunningham
|| (audio -- mp3
Counsel for Appellant: Maj Spencer R. Nelson, USAF (brief)
----------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Morgan R. Christie, USAF (brief)
Summary: GCM conviction for murder. Granted issues question (1) whether the Air Force Court properly applied United States v. Edwards, 82 M.J. 239 (C.A.A.F. 2022) in finding error – but no prejudice – for a victim impact statement that included videos, personal pictures, stock images of future events, and lyrical music that touched on themes of dying, saying farewell, and becoming an angel in heaven? (2) whether trial counsel's sentencing argument was improper under United States v. Warren, 13 M.J. 278 (C.M.A.1982) and United States v. Norwood, 81 M.J. 12 (C.A.A.F 2021), respectively, when she: (a) argued that Appellant's uncharged, false statements were aggravating evidence after she had previously cited case law to the military judge that said false statements were not admissible as evidence in aggravation; and (b) told the military judge that he had seen the media and the world was watching, to justify her sentence recommendation. A third granted issue: whether Appellant was deprived of the right to a unanimous verdict under Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020), will not be argued.
NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.