YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2025 TERM > JANUARY 2026

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

---

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Jerin P. Menard	No. 25-0173/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Joyclin N. Webster, USAF (brief)
                                                 ------------------------ (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Kate E. Lee, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for indecent viewing. Granted issue is whether the Air Force Court erred by applying the United States v. Hyppolite, 79 M.J. 161 (C.A.A.F. 2019), "common factors" test too broadly, while also declining to apply this Court's "almost identical to the charged acts" standard from United States v. Morrison, 52 M.J. 117 (C.A.A.F. 1999), thereby improperly admitting propensity evidence.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	John D. Kershaw	No. 25-0177/AF
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Frederick J. Johnson, USAF (brief)
                                                 -------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Ashley T. Levine, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for sexual abuse of a child. The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force (TJAG) filed a certificate for review of Appellee's case pursuant to Art. 67(a)(2), UCMJ, asking the Court to address: where time was not an essential element of the offense, did the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals err by finding factual insufficiency based on a discrepancy between the dates pleaded and the dates proved, when the Court should have applied a variance analysis and found a non-fatal variance instead?

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

---

Wednesday, January 14, 2026

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	James H. Bass	No. 25-0149/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Meggie C. Kane-Cruz, JAGC, USN (brief)
                                                 --------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Mary Claire Finnen, USMC (brief)

Case Summary: SPCM conviction for violating a general order by wrongfully using Tetrahydrocannabinol-8. Granted issues are: (1) whether the military judge abused his discretion in admitting evidence under M.R.E. 404(b) of prior positive urinalysis results for which Appellant had been previously acquitted at court-martial; and (2) whether the military judge erred in relying on the "permissive inference" to convict Appellant under Article 92 of knowing use of a non-controlled, commonly available substance.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Jaelen M. Johnson	No. 25-0202/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Joshua L. Lopes, USAF (brief)
                                                 --------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Regina Henenlotter, USAF(brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for assault and battery, unlawful entry, and indecent recording. Granted issue is whether it was error to rely on Appellant's incidental possession of two phones at the time of arrest as the basis to search the phones' contents going back more than eight months.

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

---

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Donte M. Brown	No. 25-0181/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: LTC Robert D. Luyties, USA (brief)
                                                -------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj MAJ Stephen L. Harmel, USA (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for domestic violence. Granted issues are: (1) whether the military judge abused his discretion when he incorrectly admitted two supposed prior consistent statements by misstating the law, applying both subsections in violation of Ayala/Finch, and failing to identify a statement that predated the clear and persistent motive to fabricate pursued by Appellant; (2) whether the Army Court erred when it disregarded this Court's plain language in Ayala/Finch and failed to explain how the prior consistent statements were relevant to rehabilitate the witness under MRE 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) beyond mere repetition; and (3) whether this Court should adopt the Pierre standard from federal courts for prior consistent statements defining "relevant to rehabilitate."

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

---

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Danielle E. Deremer	No. 25-0158/MC
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: MAJ Mary Claire Finnen, USMC (brief)
                                                  ------------------------ (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  LT Raymond Bilter, JAGC, USN (brief)

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Sean J. Kelly, Esq., Boston University School of Law, Legislative Policy & Drafting Clinic

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Victims' Legal Counsel Program -- Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Coast Guard

Case Summary: The Judge Advocate General of the Navy (Acting) filed a certificate for review of Appellee's case pursuant to Art. 67(a), UCMJ, asking the Court to address: (1) did the lower court err holding Appellant, at an interview where she waived her right to counsel, was entitled to 10 U.S.C. § 1044E rights when she was interviewed as a suspect? (2) did the lower court err finding the interview violated Appellant's due process rights and finding the statement involuntary under Mil. R. Evid. 304? (3) did the lower court err holding that suppression is an appropriate remedy for a violation of 10 U.S.C. §1044E?; and (4) did the lower court err by affirming Appellant's conviction for malingering despite holding her confession to NCIS should have been suppressed?

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Zachary M. Armsbury	No. 25-0233/AR
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: CPT Andrew T. Bobowski, USA (brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  CPT Emily R. Ittner, USA (brief)

Case Summary: The Judge Advocate General of the Army filed a certificate for review of Appellee's case pursuant to Art. 67(a), UCMJ, asking the Court to address: (1) whether the Army Court, pursuant to a "highly disparate" sentence theory, possessed the authority to set aside Appellant's bad conduct discharge when it was a negotiated term of the plea agreement; and (2) whether the Army Court abused their discretion in finding Appellee's sentence "highly disparate" and in setting aside Appellee's bad conduct discharge.

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