Argued on October 23, 2019.

Issue:

Whether the military judge abused his discretion by failing to grant Appellant Article 13, UCMJ, credit in consequence of the Howell v. United States, 75 M.J. 386 (C.A.A.F. 2016) violation present here.

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

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

Argued on October 23, 2019.

Issues:

I. Whether the convening authority’s selection of members violated the equal protection requirements of the Fifth Amendment.

II. Whether the convening authority’s selection of members constituted unlawful command influence.

III. Whether the lower court erred in affirming the military judge’s denial of Appellant’s motion to produce evidence of the racial makeup of potential members.

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

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

Argued on October 22, 2019.

Index:

Appellant's argument (MAJ Burroughs): 00:35

Appellant's argument (Mr. Potter): 41:20

Gov't Div. argument (MAJ Parnell): 56:25

Appellant's rebuttal argument (MAJ Burroughs): 1:32:15

Issues:

I. Whether a break in Appellant’s service foreclosed the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction.

II. Whether the charges arose in the Armed Forces, and fell within the subject matter jurisdiction of a capital court-martial.

III. Whether the court-martial had personal jurisdiction over Appellant.

IV. Whether the military judge denied appellant a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.

V. Whether the military judge abused his discretion in restricting defense counsel’s voir dire and in denying defense challenges for cause.

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

Note: Audio merged into a single file and post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter and a noise reduction filter. 

Argued on October 3, 2019.

Case Summary:  A general court-martial consisting of members with enlisted  representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one  specification of forcible rape, in violation of Article 120(a)(1), UCMJ  (10 U.S.C. § 920 (2012)), two specifications of sexual assault, in  violation of Article 120(b)(1)(B), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920), and one  specification of rape, in violation of Article 120(a)(5), UCMJ (10  U.S.C. § 920). The members sentenced Appellant to 25 years’ confinement,  reduction to paygrade E-1, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable  discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged

Issues:

[II]. Did the Appellant waive objection on appeal to the military judge’s admission of Ms. D.R.’s out-of-court statement?

Note: Audio remixed from stereo to mono and post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

Argued on September 27, 2019.

Case Summary:  A special court-martial consisting of officer members convicted  Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of dereliction of  duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 892), one  specification of simple assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ (10  U.S.C. § 928), and one specification of disorderly conduct, in violation  of Article 134, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 934). The members sentenced Appellant  to a reprimand, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge.  The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

Issues:

[II]A. Did the court members acquit  Appellant of both elements of simple assault in the second announcement  of their findings through improper exception and substitution?

[II]B. Did the language substituted by the court members in the second announcement of their findings fail to state an offense?

Note: Audio remixed from stereo to mono and post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

Argued on September 20, 2019.

Case Summary:  A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general  court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of violation  of a lawful order, rape and sexual abuse of a child, sexual assault,  aggravated assault, assault consummated by battery, solicitation and  distribution of child pornography, receipt and possession of child  pornography, obstruction of justice, and adultery,in violation of  Articles 92, 120, 120b, 128, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§892, 920, 920b,  928, 934 (2016). The members sentenced Appellant to thirty-nine years of  confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and  allowances, and a dishonorable discharge.The Convening Authority  approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the dishonorable  discharge, ordered the sentence executed.

Issues:

II. Did the government’s actions in 1)  disclosing responsive communications on the last day of trial during  presentencing proceedings; and 2) disclosing additional responsive  communications shortly before a post-trial Article 39(a) session  constitute a discovery violation?

III. Was Appellant materially prejudiced by either alleged discovery violation?

Note: Audio remixed from stereo to mono and post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.

Argued on October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Issue: Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment requires dismissal of Appellant’s convictions.

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

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

Argued on September 30, 2019.

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion in refusing to give a defense-requested instruction that the panel could consider reasonable mistake of fact as to consent as a factor when evaluating whether appellant’s conduct was indecent.

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

Argued on Friday, August 2, 2019.

Case Summary: A general court-martial consisting of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of abusive sexual contact and one specification of sexual assault, in violation of Article 120, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920 (2012)), involving two separate victims. The members sentenced Appellant to reduction to paygrade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, ten years’ confinement, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

On Appellant’s initial appeal, this Court affirmed his convictions of abusive sexual contact and set aside his conviction of sexual assault. The Court authorized a rehearing, and remanded the matter to the Convening Authority for action. On remand, the Convening Authority dismissed those specifications that this Court set aside and ordered a sentencing rehearing for the affirmed convictions. At the rehearing, a panel of members with enlisted representation sentenced Appellant to reduction in paygrade to E-1, thirty-six months’ confinement, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

Appellant now challenges both his initially affirmed convictions of abusive sexual contact and his sentence from the rehearing.

Issue:

When a judge recuses himself, he may not subsequently play a procedural or substantive role in the case. Here, the military judge recused himself and continued to consult with his successor on important legal issues in the case. Did the military judge play a substantive role and act inconsistent with his recusal?

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

Argued on August 13, 2019.

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