Oral Argument Audio Podcast

Oral Argument Audio Podcast

By CAAFlogEducation
Download on the App Store

Oral Argument Audio Podcast episodes

  • CAAF: United States v. Moore, No. 20-0119/AR

    Argued on March 17, 2020.

    Issue
    :
    Did the Army court err when, upon reconsideration, it determined that the 5-year statute of limitations barred the rehearing of the two sexual assault specifications?

    CAAFlog case page:

    https://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2019-term/united-states-v-moore/

    Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

    41 min
  • CAAF: United States v. Baas, No. 19-0377/MC

    Argued on March 17, 2020.

    Issues
    :
    I. Did admission of an allegedly positive Diatherix Laboratories test for gonorrhea without testimony at trial of any witness from Diatherix violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause?

    II. Did the lower court abuse its discretion in admitting an alleged positive Diatherix test result for gonorrhea in a child’s rectal swab-where Diatherix failed to follow its own procedures and the result was of near zero probative value?

    CAAFlog case page:

    https://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2019-term/united-states-v-baas/

    Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

    45 min
  • NMCCA: United States v. Simpson, No. 201800268

    Argued on February 6, 2020.

    Issues
    :
    I. To convict under Article 120c(a)(3), must the Government prove the attendant circumstances of both an indecent viewing under Article 120c(a)(1) and an indecent recording under Article 120c(a)(2)?

    II. Whether one who causes another to deliver an indecent visual recording to oneself may providently plead guilty to distribution of that same indecent visual recording under Articles 77 and 120c(a)(3) in light of United States v. Hill, 25 M.J. 411 (C.M.A. 1988)?

    III. Given the Government’s charging theory, were Appellant’s guilty pleas to Charge I, Specifications 2 and 3 provident when his alleged co-conspirator was not subject to the UCMJ?

    Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

    1 hr 13 min
  • CAAF: United States v. Carter, No. 19-0382/AR

    Argued on February 11, 2020.

    Issues
    :
    I. Whether trial defense counsel were ineffective for failing to introduce exculpatory evidence in their possession.

    II. Whether the military judge abused his discretion by failing to order a mistrial for the charges and specifications.

    III. Whether the military judge committed plain error by admitting evidence of historical cell-site location information. See Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018).

    CAAFlog case page:

    https://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2019-term/united-states-v-carter-october-2019-term/

    Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

    42 min
  • CAAF: United States v. Clark, No. 19-0411/AR

    Argued on February 11, 2020.

    Issues
    :
    I. Did the military judge err in applying R.C.M. 914?

    II. If the military judge erred, under what standard should this Court assess prejudice?

    III. Was there prejudice under the applicable standard of review?

    CAAFlog case page:

    https://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2019-term/united-states-v-clark-october-2019-term/

    Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

    39 min
  • CAAF: United States v. Avery, No. 19-0259/AR

    Argued on January 15, 2020.

    Issue
    :
    Whether the specification of Charge II, alleging the communication of indecent language to a child in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, was preempted by Article 120b.

    CAAFlog case page:

    http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2019-term/united-states-v-avery/

    Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

    42 min
  • CAAF: United States v. Washington, No. 19-0252/AR

    Argued on January 15, 2020.

    Issue
    :
    Whether the military judge abused her discretion by permitting the unit’s SHARP representative to testify that “when a person says ‘no’ it means stop, walk away.”

    CAAFlog case page:

    https://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2019-term/united-states-v-washington/

    Note: Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

    40 min

About Oral Argument Audio Podcast

From the publisher's feed

This podcast re-distributes audio of oral arguments at CAAF and the CCAs, and occasionally at other courts. The audio recordings are created by the individual courts and the recordings are generally…