Send us Fan Mail

In their debut episode as hosts, Sam and Trevor discuss the recent CAAF decision,United States v. Casillas, __ M.J. __, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 692 (C.A.A.F. 2025). Casillas clarifies (or confuses?) the holding in United States v. Mendoza, 85 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 2024), that cases charging a “without consent” theory of liability under Article 120, UCMJ, cannot be proven where the complaining witness is incapable of consenting, i.e., asleep or unconscious. Sam and Trevor also discuss a recent Navy CCA decision, United States v. Grafton, No. 202400055, 2025 LX 342911 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 11, 2025), that highlights some of the post-Mendoza influences (or problems?) in military justice practice. Before concluding, the duo briefly discuss instructional errors under Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, (1957). 

Questions, comments, concerns for the nerds? Email us at [email protected]!

Send us Fan Mail

In today's episode we say farewell to long-time host Darrel Johnson and officially welcome our new hosts, Sam Castanien and Trevor Ward!  In so doing, we discuss United States v. Saul & United States v. Navarro-Aguire, two cases that speak to the providence of a guilty plea and the importance of clarifying inconsistencies during the Care inquiry.  We then discuss United States v. George, an important case that makes new law on how the appellate courts will evaluate defective/ambiguous specifications.  

Send us Fan Mail

In this week's episode we discuss one CAAF case, one N-MCCA case, and the reversing the script on MRE 404(b).  The CAAF case is United States v. Patterson, where CAAF declines to second guess the AFCCA on factual sufficiency because it is statutorily restricted to reviewing questions of law.  The N-MCCA case has several issues, including the permissive inference in a no-BCD SPCM, the Confrontation Clause, and the Constitutionality of a mandatory no-BCD SPCM in a drug case.  We then hear from Raquel Muscioni on utilizing M.R.E. 404(b) to prove up motive, competence, or other non-character matters pertaining to government witnesses.  

Send us Fan Mail

In today's episode we discuss two cases from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces:  United States v. Johnson, which cements the conclusion that military appellate courts will not correct an erroneous indorsement to the Statement of Trial Results or Entry of Judgment requiring firearm prohibitions; and United States v. Thomas, which discusses the burdens on the defense and government under Batson v. Kentucky . . . even though it is not at all clear that that case applies to the facts of this case.  We then hear from Allen Abrams on the "permissive inference" and when and how to object to it.  

Send us Fan Mail

In this week's (lengthy) episode we discuss United States v. Taylor, which deals with the statutory requirements that must be satisfied when involuntarily recalling a reserve member to active duty for purposes of court-martial (and how they differ from the statutory requirements that must be satisfied to subject the reservist to UCMJ jurisdiction).  We then discuss United States v. Harborth, where the issue was whether the government must have probable cause before accepting property seized by a private party . . . but the court avoids answering that question by finding 1) Harborth waived consideration of the length of time the property was held without probable cause, 2) a search or seizure by a private actor, not acting at the behest of the government, does not implicate the Fourth Amendment, and 3) the waiver was not IAC because, even if the search was unconstitutional, the military judge would have nevertheless exercised his discretion to find that suppression of the evidence was not warranted.  Not great.

Send us Fan Mail

This week we discuss United States v. Brinkman-Coronel, where the CAAF acknowledges that cellular phones are unique under the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment analysis, but then presses on to treat third party consent to the search of a cell phone in the same manner as third party consent to search a brief case.  Disappointing.  We then hear from Captain Elliot Ko with a very thoughtful discussion of MRE 513 in regard to Family Advocacy records -- including seven specific suggestions for defenders.  

Send us Fan Mail

In this week's episode we discuss the AFCCA case of United States v. Hunt, where the AFCCA applies the new factual sufficiency analysis and concludes that the government failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- a huge defense win.  We then hear from Allen Abrams on Military Rule of Evidence 105 -- Allen does an excellent job of conveying the importance of the rule and how defenders can harness its power to ensure evidence is used in the manner most beneficial to the client.  

Send us Fan Mail

Today Lt Col Allen Abrams joins to discuss the case of United States v. Shafran.  The issue in the case is an Article 134 specification that failed to include words of criminality, such as "wrongfully" or "unlawfully."  The case provides an excellent vehicle for Allen to provide defenders with considerations and options for attacking defective specifications.  We then hear from the Free Speech Dynamic Duo - Trevor Ward and Sam Castanien who apply the current state of Free Speech law in military justice to the enumerated Article 134 offense of Sexual Harassment.  

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we discuss United States v. Caswell, where the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals declined to follow the bench book and CAAF precedent, because it found that by moving the offense of unlawful possession of a concealed dangerous weapon from Article 134 to Article 114, the nature of the offense changed to put more onus on the unlawfulness element.  Therefore, it declined to apply the "permissive inference" that previously allowed the factfinder to infer unlawfulness based solely on evidence the weapon was concealed.  We then shift gears and talk about an upcoming CAAF case (United States v. Miller) on the issue of whether the automatic closure of an MRE 412 hearing is unconstitutional.

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we discuss the case of United States v. Urieta, where CAAF found an abuse of discretion in a military judge's failure to grant a defense challenge for implied balance in light of the liberal grant mandate.  We also discuss United States v. Valentin-Andino, which makes clear that "appropriate relief" may not feel like any relief at all to the client.  We also get to hear from Major Rebecca Saathoff on  strategic considerations when objecting (or hoping opposing counsel fails to object) to a proper confrontation of a witness with a prior inconsistent statement.