It's official

CAAF's Daily Journal notes today that three cases carried over from last year's season: Nelson, Thompson, and Slayton. A bit more angst for those hanging by a thread awaiting Nelson.

Nelson, perhaps the more important of the three because of the oft-repeated appearance of the issue in records, asks: DID THE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MERE FAILURE TO OBJECT WHEN THE MILITARY TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT EXECUTE HIS SUA SPONTE DUTY TO INSTRUCT ON ALL REASONABLY RAISED DEFENSES DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN AFFIRMATIVE WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO HAVE A PANEL INSTRUCTED ON ALL REASONABLY RAISED DEFENSES?

The other two are both Certified ones.

Slayton asks (apparently not set for argument yet, Certificate filed 29 December):

I. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR BY FINDING APPELLEE'S CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT, IN PART, BASED ON MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT, WHEN APPELLEE DID NOT IDENTIFY OR ARGUE MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT AS A SPECIFIC DEFICIENCY IN PROOF IN HIS APPEAL?
 
II. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR IN APPLYING UNITED STATES v. MENDOZA, 85 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 2024) TO FIND APPELLEE'S SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT?
 
III. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO GIVE APPROPRIATE DEFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL COURT SAW AND HEARD THE WITNESSES AND OTHER EVIDENCE?

Thompson asks WHETHER THE SPECIAL FINDINGS WARRANT REVERSAL OF APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER. Interesting. A first real look at how special findings work?