Oral Argument Audio Podcast

Argued on November 6, 2018. 

Issue: Whether the military judge erred by misconstruing Mil.R.Evid. 707 and prohibiting Appellant from presenting evidence relevant to Appellant’s post-polygraph statement. 

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

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

Argued on November 6, 2018. 

Issue: The military judge found Appellant guilty of viewing child pornography. But all of the alleged child pornography appellant allegedly viewed was found in unallocated space or a Google cache. Is the evidence legally sufficient? 

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

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

Argued on October 24, 2018. 

Issue: Whether the Army Court erred in holding that the minimum mens rea required under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, UCMJ, to separate wrongful from innocent conduct is simple negligence. 

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

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

Argued on October 23, 2018. 

Issues: 

I. The lower court found as a matter of law that personal jurisdiction does not exist outside of the hours of inactive-duty training. The lower court proceeded to find personal jurisdiction existed over Appellant because he was “staying” with his in-laws. Was this error? 

II. Whether the lower court erred when it concluded the military judge correctly instructed the members they could convict Appellant for conduct “on or about” the dates alleged in each specification. 

Specified Issue: 

III. Whether the lower court erred in concluding the court-martial had jurisdiction over specification 2 of additional charge 1, as modified to affirm the lesser included offense of attempted larceny. 

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

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

Argued on October 23, 2018. 

Issues: 

I. Are victim impact statements admitted pursuant to R.C.M. 1001A evidence subject to the Military Rules of Evidence? 

II. Whether the military judge erred in admitting prosecution exhibits 4, 5, and 6. 

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

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

Argued on October 16, 2018. 

Case Summary: A panel of officers sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of sexual harassment, two specifications of drunken operation of a vehicle, three specifications of sexual assault, one specification of extortion, one specification of burglary, two specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer, one specification of communicating a threat, and two specifications of unlawful entry in violation of Articles 92, 111, 120, 127, 129, 133, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 911, 920, 927, 929, 933, and 934 (2016). The appellant was sentenced to twenty years’ confinement and a dismissal. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the dismissal, ordered the sentence executed. 

Issues: 

I. After removing minority and female members from a panel, the government must provide a demographic-neutral reason for the removals. The convening authority removed two African Americans and three women from the appellant’s members panel and replaced them with only white men. Was it error to not require a demographic-neutral explanation after the defense objected? 

[II]. Evidence admitted under military rule of evidence 404(b) must be materially relevant and the probative value must outweigh the prejudice. The military judge instructed the members they may use evidence that was not materially relevant and invited character inferences to prove intent and motive. Did the military judge err in assessing the material relevance, probative value and prejudicial effect on the evidence? 

http://www.caaflog.com/2018/10/23/nmcca-argument-audio-jeter/

Argued on September 13, 2018. 

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying a defense motion to suppress the accusing witness’s in-court identification of Appellant. 

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

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

Argued on September 12, 2018. 

Issues: 

I. Whether Appellant’s request to Criminal Investigation Command (CID) that his cell phone be returned was a withdrawal of the third party consent to search given by Appellant’s wife in Appellant’s absence. 

II. Whether the Army Court erred in determining the applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine where (1) the CID agents failed to take any steps to obtain a warrant and (2) the case took a “dead-end” until the warrantless search. 

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

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