Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

8/23/2024

The 2023 season is almost over with yesterday's decisions in Wheeler and Strong.

And now for something different. We thought we'd try to get some audience participation—that's you, dear readers. We would like your suggestions for the three most consequential decisions of the season. It would be even better if you gave a pithy explanation of why they are consequential.

There is just over a month before the new season starts on 1 October when we can share any results.

You can do this by emailing [email protected]. or pseudonym is OK.

United States v. Wheeler

United States v. Strong

1 Comment

Scott

8/24/2024 19:49:01

Comparing the hearing calendar to the opinions, there are seven outstanding:

1. Jones (Argued 17 JAN 2024)
Granted issue is whether the military judge committed prejudicial error by admitting Appellant's post incident browser history as res gestae evidence.

2. Smith (Argued 24 JAN 2024)
Granted issue is whether Appellant's conviction for breach of peace, based exclusively on speech, is legally insufficient and unconstitutional where, inter alia, all parties agree the charged speech did not constitute "fighting words."

3. Mendoza (Argued 5 MAR 2024)
Granted issue questions whether Appellant's conviction for sexual assault without consent was legally sufficient.

4. Wells (Argued 6 MAR 2024)
Granted issue is whether Appellant's conviction for a clause 2, Article 134, UCMJ, offense is legally insufficient as to the terminal element?

5. Harvey (Argued 17 APR 2024)
Granted issue is did the lower Court erroneously interpret and apply the amended factual sufficiency standard under Article 66(d)(1)(b), UCMJ?

6. Jaheemee J. Williams (Argued 7 MAY 2024) (NOTE: There are 2 Williams this term – the other has been decided).
Granted issues question (1) whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has jurisdiction to review the modification to the judgment of the Court made by the Army CCA in changing block 32 (Has the accused been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)?) from "No" as entered by the military judge in the judgment of the Court back to the original "Yes" in the statement of trial results and (2) whether the Army CCA erred by asserting that Appellant has a qualifying conviction under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9).

7. Flanner (Argued 7 MAY 2024)
The Judge Advocate General of the Navy has certified this suppression ruling by asking whether the military judge abused her discretion in suppressing Appellee's non-custodial, pre-referral, self-scheduled interview with law enforcement in which Appellee waived the rights to counsel and to remain silent.

CAAFlog