Argued on April 9, 2019, at the University of Kansas School of Law in Lawrence, Kansas.

Issue: Whether the military judge erred in admitting hearsay statements as  prior consistent statements under Mil.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(i) where the defense theory posited the improper influence or motive preceded the  allegedly consistent statements.

http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-frost/

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

Argued on March 29, 2019, at Penn State Law, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.

Issue: Does Article 2 of the UCMJ violate the Appellant’s right to Equal Protection by subjecting him to court-martial after retiring from active service, if retired and non-activated Reservists are not subject to court-martial? Was this issue waived by the Appellant’s unconditional guilty plea?

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

Argued on March 27, 2019 

Major Hasan seeks extraordinary relief in  the nature of a writ of   mandamus ordering the judges of the Army Court  of Criminal Appeals to disqualify themselves from his case.

http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/hasan-v-acca/

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

Argued on March 27, 2019 

Issue:  Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he suppressed SPC  Lewis’s third statement as involuntary under Military Rule of Evidence  304.

http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-lewis/

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

Argued on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 

Major Hasan seeks extraordinary relief in  the nature of a writ of mandamus ordering the judges of the Army Court  of Criminal Appeals to disqualify themselves from his case.

http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/hasan-v-acca/

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

Argued on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 

Issue:  Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he suppressed SPC  Lewis’s third statement as involuntary under Military Rule of Evidence  304.

http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-lewis/

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

Argued on March 11, 2019.

Case summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of violating a lawful general order, violating a lawful general regulation, sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, and adultery in violation of Articles 92, 120, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 920, 934 (2016). The Members sentenced Appellant to eighteen months’ confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered it executed.

Issue: Did the military judge abuse his discretion in denying the defense’s motion to suppress evidence seized during searches on 25-26 July 2016 of MSgt Armendariz’s body, phones, vehicle, office, and office wall locker?

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

Argued on February 21, 2019

Issues:

II. Whether the AFCCA erred in finding  that the specifications alleging violations of Article 133, UCMJ, stated  an offense despite the fact that they lack words of criminality or a  mens rea.

III. Whether plain error occurred when  the military judge failed to instruct the members that mens rea was an  element of an offense under Article 133.

http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-voorhees/

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

Argued on February 21, 2019

Issue: Whether the Army Court erred, first, in finding that this Court overruled sub silencio the Supreme Court holding in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967), and this Court’s own holdings in United States v. Wolford, 62 M.J. 418, 420 (C.A.A.F. 2006), and in United States v. Hills,  75 M.J. 350, 357 (C.A.A.F. 2016), and, consequently, in testing for  prejudice in this case using the standard for nonconstitutional error.

CAAFlog case page: http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-tovarchavez/

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

Argued on February 19, 2019

Issue: Whether the Army Court erred by affirming a novel specification covered by an enumerated Art. 134, UCMJ offense. 

CAAFlog case page: http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-gleason/

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