Oral Argument Audio Podcast

Argued on February 19, 2019

Issue: Whether the military judge erred in instructing the panel that a negligent mens rea was sufficient to make otherwise lawful conduct criminal.

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

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

Argued on February 14, 2019.

Case Summary: A panel of officer and enlisted members sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, a Master-At-Arms Seaman (E-3), contrary to his pleas, of one specification of sexual assault in violation of Article 120, UCMJ. The members sentenced him to confinement for eight years, reduction to the pay grade of E-1, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. The CA ordered the sentence executed, except for the dishonorable discharge.

Issues:

I. Does Article 120(b)(1)(B) of the UCMJ fail to provide adequate standards by which an ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, whether a sexual encounter would be lawful, rendering it unconstitutionally vague?

II. Were the findings instructions plainly erroneous because lack of consent was not included as an element of the offense of sexual assault by bodily harm, and because the instructions would have permitted a conviction without the prosecution proving lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt?

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

Argued on January 31, 2019.

Case Summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of conspiracy, one specification of making a false official statement, two specifications of committing a sexual act upon a child, two specifications of producing child pornography with intent to distribute, and two specifications of distributing child pornography in violation of Articles 81, 107, 120b, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 881, 907, 920b, and 934 (2012). The appellant was sentenced to fifteen years’ confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the dishonorable discharge, ordered it executed.

Issues:

I. Did the military judge abuse his discretion in admitting the Diatherix gonorrhea test results and the related testimony of Drs. Hobbs and Kafer?

II. Did the Diatherix gonorrhea test results and the related testimony of Drs. Hobbs and Kafer constitute testimonial hearsay, the admission of which violated the Sixth Amendment?

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

Argued on January 22, 2019.

Discussed at:  http://www.caaflog.com/2019/01/22/twimj-addendum-al-nashiri-at-the-dc-circuit/

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

Argued on January 24, 2019.

Case summary: The case is an interlocutory government appeal pursuant to Article 62, UCMJ. The accused faces, inter alia, charges of sexual assault and sexual harassment. The military judge found the sole Specification of Charge I (violation of a lawful general order) failed to state an offense, finding that United States Navy General Regulations (1990) Article 1166 is not punitive and is void for vagueness. After the military judge granted the defense’s motion to dismiss the Specification, the government filed its appeal.

Issue: Whether the military judge erred by dismissing the sole Specification of Charge I finding that Article 1166, United States Navy General Regulations (1990), is not punitive and is void for vagueness?

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

Argued on January 23, 2019. 

Issue: Whether Appellant’s conviction for engaging in anonymous, private, and  consensual communications with an unknown partner(s) in the privacy of  his home was legally sufficient.

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

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

Argued on January 23, 2019.

Issue: Whether the military judge erred when he denied the defense motion to suppress evidence of conduct for which Appellant had been acquitted at his first trial.

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

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

Argued on Tuesday, January 22, 2019 

Issues:

I. Whether this Court’s holding in United States v. Carter as applied by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in this case, instead of the plain reading of MRE 311(c) this Court applied in United States v. Hoffman, controls in analyzing the applicability of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

II. Whether the military judge erred in denying a defense motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of Appellant’s home.

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

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

Argued on Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Issues:

I. Whether the military judge abused her discretion in denying a defense motion to suppress evidence obtained from Appellant’s cellular telephone because access to the contents of the iPhone would not have been available but for the government’s illegal search and the good faith doctrine would be inapplicable under the circumstances.

II. Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred in deeming the insufficient nexus issue waived because there was no deliberate decision not to present a ground for potential relief but instead only a failure to succinctly articulate the grounds upon which relief was sought.

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

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

Argued on January 16, 2019.

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