YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2025 TERM > DECEMBER 2025

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

---

Tuesday, December 9, 2025

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Jorge A. Hurtado	No. 25-0212/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: CPT Jessica A. Adler, USA (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  MAJ Isaac J. Dickson, USA (brief)

Case Summary: Appellant was charged with abusive sexual contact, sexual assault, and indecent exposure. Appellant was interviewed by CID agents and made several inculpatory statements. He subsequently moved to suppress his statements arguing that his invocation of right to counsel was ignored. The military judge agreed. Pursuant to Article 62, UCMJ, the government appealed this ruling. The Army Court found the military judge abused his discretion, and Appellant ultimately waived his right to counsel. Granted issues question: (1) whether the military judge's ruling was not an abuse of discretion; and (2) whether the military judge made clearly erroneous factual findings and the Army Court's "mere disagreements" justify deviating from the standard this Court mandates under Article 62.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Daytron Abullah	No. 25-0070/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: CPT Andrew W. Moore, JA, USA (brief)
                                                 -------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  MAJ Isaac J. Dickson, JA, USA (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for desertion, AWOL, disobeying an officer and marijuana use. Granted issue questions whether a retired appellate judge and an appellate judge on terminal leave impermissibly participated in an en banc decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals.

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

---

Wednesday, December 10, 2025

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Braxston C. Spencer	No. 25-0192/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: LCDR Michael W. Wester, JAGC, USN (brief)
                                                    ------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Mary Claire Finnen, USMC (brief)

Case Summary: SPCM conviction for larceny. Granted issue is under Article 66, UCMJ, a CCA must determine the appropriateness of a sentence apart from its legality. Did the CCA abuse its discretion by saying it would not, "second guess[]" a sentence because it fell within the range of a plea agreement without indicating the sentence was also appropriate?

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Ashley R. Ellis	No. 25-0197/AR
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: CPT Nicholas A. Schaffer, JA, USA (brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  CPT Eli M. Creighton, JA, USA (brief)

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- James A. Young, National Institute of Military Justice

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Air Force Appellate Defense Division

Case Summary: GCM conviction for conduct unbecoming an officer. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals found that the miliary judge had instructed the members as to the specification but omitted the "clear and present danger" test laid out in United States v. Hartwig, 39 M.J. 125 (C.M.A. 1994), set aside the guilty finding and sentence, and ordered a rehearing. On 18 June 2025, the Judge Advocate General of the Army (TJAG) filed a certificate for review of Appellee's case pursuant to Art. 67(a)(2), UCMJ, asking the Court to address: (1) whether the Army Court erred by finding Appellant had not waived whether the military judge should have instructed the panel on the state of law of the First Amendment; (2) whether the Army Court erred by omitting analysis regarding forfeiture on whether the military judge should have instructed the panel on the state of the law of the First Amendment; (3) whether the Army Court erred by finding a mandatory panel instruction on the state of the law of the First Amendment that the military judge failed to give; and (4) whether the Army Court erred by finding the military judge needed to provide a panel instruction regarding a question of law.

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