CAAFlog: Oral Argument Audio

CAAFlog: Oral Argument Audio

By CAAFlog
CAAFlog is a military justice blog covering the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) and the service Courts of Criminal Appeals.

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 available on each court's website; this podcast duplicates those recordings in the form of a podcast for listener convenience.
Available on 9 platforms
CAAF: United States v. Stout, No. 18-0273/AR
Argued on December 4, 2018. Issue: Whether the Government made major changes to the time frame of three offenses, over defense objection, and failed to prefer them anew in accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial 603. CAAFlog case page: http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-stout/
36:23
December 4, 2018
CAAF: United States v. Briggs, No. 16-0711/AF
Argued on December 4, 2018. Issues: I. Does the 2006 amendment to Article 43, UCMJ, clarifying that rape is an offense with no statute of limitations, apply retroactively to offenses committed before enactment of the amendment but for which the then extant statute of limitations had not expired. II. Can Appellant successfully raise a statute of limitations defense for the first time on appeal. CAAFlog case page: http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-briggs/
36:59
December 4, 2018
CAAF: United States v. Forbes, No. 18-0304/NA
Argued on December 4, 2018. Issue: Whether the Navy court erred in holding that appellant was provident to sexual assault by bodily harm due to his failure to inform his sexual partners of his HIV status. CAAFlog case page: http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-forbes/
43:23
December 4, 2018
CAAF: United States v. Cooper, No. 18-0282/NA
Argued on December 4, 2018. Issues: I. Did the lower court err not finding waiver of the right to request individual military counsel where Appellee was advised of his right to request an individual military counsel, agreed he understood the right but wanted instead to be represented by trial defense counsel, and made no motion for individual military counsel? II. Did the lower court err in not applying the Strickland ineffective assistance test where the government and trial judge played no part in the defense’s failure to request individual military counsel, and if so, did Appellee suffer ineffective assistance of counsel? III. If Strickland does not apply, did the lower court correctly find Appellee was deprived of his statutory right to request individual military counsel? IV. Did the lower court err in it’s prejudice analysis for Appellee’s asserted deprivation of his statutory right to individual military counsel when Appellee did not preserve the issue at trial, raised the issue for the first time on appeal, and has alleged no specific prejudice? CAAFlog case page: http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-cooper/
52:57
December 4, 2018
AFCCA: United States v. Simmons, No. 39342
http://www.caaflog.com/2018/11/29/afcca-argument-audio-simmons/
1:06:27
November 30, 2018
NMCCA: United States v. Jennings, No. 201700241
Argued on October 25, 2018. Case Summary: A panel of officers sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of six specifications under Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of solicitation under Article 134, UCMJ. The members sentenced the appellant to three years’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered the sentence executed. Issues: [I]. Whether the government failed to disprove the defense of entrapment—that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service Agent did not induce the Appellant or that the Appellant was predisposed to commit this crime. [II]. The government cannot use liberty risk as a subterfuge for restriction. Here, the government held the appellant on liberty risk, which restricted him to base, for 732 days (513 days prior to arraignment). Did the government’s actions constitute restriction under Rule for Courts-Martial 304(a)(2) and trigger Rule for Courts-Martial 707? [IV]. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a servicemember the right to effective assistance of counsel. The appellant spent 732 days in restriction, which started the government’s Rule for Courts-Martial 707 http://www.caaflog.com/2018/11/26/nmcca-argument-audio-jennings/
1:25:27
November 27, 2018
9th Circuit: EV v. Eugene Robinson, Jr., No. 16-16975
Discussed at: http://www.caaflog.com/2018/11/15/the-9th-circuit-affirms-the-dismissal-of-an-alleged-victims-collateral-challenge-of-a-discovery-order/
24:12
November 14, 2018
CAAF: United States v. Nicola, No. 18-0247/AR
Argued on November 7, 2018. Issue: Whether the evidence of indecent viewing in violation of Article 120c, UCMJ, was legally sufficient. CAAFlog case page: http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-nicola/
19:56
November 7, 2018
CAAF: United States v. Bodoh, No. 18-0201/AR
Argued on November 7, 2018. Issue: Whether the military judge plainly erred by allowing the trial counsel to misstate the law and argue that the panel should base its verdict on SHARP training CAAFlog case page: http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-bodoh/
38:31
November 7, 2018
CAAF: United States v. Kohlbek, No. 18-0267/AR
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/
41:54
November 7, 2018
CAAF: United States v. King, No. 18-0288/AF
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/
46:33
November 7, 2018
CAAF: United States v. Tucker, No. 18-0254/AR
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/
41:05
November 7, 2018
CAAF: United States v. Hale, No. 18-0162/AF
Argued on October 23, 2018. Granted 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/
42:23
November 7, 2018
CAAF: United States v. Hamilton, No. 18-0135/AF
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/
46:39
November 7, 2018
NMCCA: United States v. Jeter, No. 201700248
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/
1:08:01
November 7, 2018
CAAF: United States v. Criswell, No. 18-0091/AR
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/
1:07:52
November 7, 2018
CAAF: United States v. Eugene, No. 18-0209/AR
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/
40:41
November 7, 2018
Make your own podcast for free with Anchor!