, After Appellant filed two petitions for coram nobis with the Unit-, ed States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, which that court and this, Court denied, the district court dismissed the habeas petition without, prejudice.
2004) (holding, that the Court had no jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 to, hear the governments appeal because the trial court did not, make an evidentiary ruling); United States v. W.R. see also U.S. Const. This case clearly in-, volves a military judges ruling that excluded evidence.
David P., Sheldon, Esq., As an initial matter, the Government challenges, inter, alia, the military judges factual finding that commercial, food products manufactured in the United States containing, hemp seeds, such as Strong & KIND bars do not contain, enough THC to trigger a positive drug test.
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Colby C. BAILEY, Seaman, United States Coast Guard, Appellant, No. 17-0265, Crim.instruction is correct;6 After Appellants trial and this Courts decision in Pease, the, Military Judges Benchbook was updated to include a definition, for incapable of consenting.
Appellant has, filed a consolidated motion requesting, in relevant part, ap-, pointment of appellate defense team members pursuant to, the Armys capital litigation regulation, as well as funding, for learned counsel, a mitigation specialist, and a fact inves-, tigator. Appellant was acquitted.
2016), the military judge committed error, in instructing the court members in Appellants case that, they could consider evidence of charged offenses to establish, Appellants propensity to commit other charged offenses, but, that the error was harmless.
2016), the military judge committed error, in instructing the court members in Appellants case that, they could consider evidence of charged offenses to establish, Appellants propensity to commit other charged offenses, but, that the error was harmless.
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Steven M. TUCKER, Private, United States Army, Appellant, No. 17-0160, Crim. The CCA further held that because, this mens rea requirement was specifically included in Arti-, cle 134, UCMJ, and because the Supreme Courts decision in, Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
The majority concludes, to the contrary, that an, interrogation, and therefore an Edwards violation, occurred, because Appellee demonstrated that entry of his passcode, was an incriminating response, i.e., a response that, furnish[ed] a link in the chain of evidence needed to, prosecute Appellee.
United States v. Roberts, 59, M.J., A. Wrongful Sexual Contact—Cadet MI, Cadet MI became ill after consuming alcoholic beverages, with other cadets (Appellant, Cadet Thomas, and Cadet RH), and fell asleep on one of the beds in Appellants room, after, which Cadets Thomas and RH left the room.
United States v. Roberts, 59, M.J., A. Wrongful Sexual Contact—Cadet MI, Cadet MI became ill after consuming alcoholic beverages, with other cadets (Appellant, Cadet Thomas, and Cadet RH), and fell asleep on one of the beds in Appellants room, after, which Cadets Thomas and RH left the room.
, SA Stinson, an agent who spent a majority of his CGIS, career on narcotics task forces, testified that as soon as, marijuana was mentioned in the interview, it was a red, flag and that he had connected in his mind that Ramos, was a part of an illegal business under the UCMJ. See Jones, 73 M.J.
issued to search electronic media for these charges, searched, Appellees thumb drive with a direction to find evidence of, child pornography, an offense not mentioned in either the, warrant or the supporting affidavit. See Buford, 74 M.J. United States v., Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 124 (1984).
UNITED STATES, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v., Patrick CARTER, Master Sergeant, United States Air Force, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Nos. In this case the United States Air, Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) did not order a, rehearing.1 We also granted review of five additional issues.
At trial, the Governments forensic expert testified as to, how and when the child pornography files were transferred, between Appellants various devices during the charged time, periods. Appellant was convicted of storing child, pornography in his web-based mail account, a cloud-based service.
Second, Appellant contends that the military judge, misstated the parameters of the mistake of fact as to consent, defense in his instructions to members. Appellant then got up off of [PV2 KF] and walked, with SPC RS into the common area and continued [their], conversation.
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Sean M. AHERN, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Army, Appellant, No. 17-0032, Crim., We hold that Appellant waived his Military Rule of Evidence, (M.R.E., [CDC]: No objections. While this Court reviews forfeited issues for plain, error, United States v. Gladue, 67 M.J.
UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 832 (2012), investigation, several charges, were referred to a general court-martial, including Specifica-, tion 3 of Charge III (lewd act), and the Specification of the, Additional Charge, which alleged a novel obstruction of, justice offense under Article 134, UCMJ.
, In Hills, a members trial, we held that under Military, Rules of Evidence (M.R.E., On appeal, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals recog-, nized that the military judge had initially ruled that the, government could use propensity evidence in a manner, found to be in error in Hills.
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Austin L. HENDRIX, Specialist, United States Army, Appellant, No. 16-0731, Crim. The CID agent then obtained SPC PKs, consent to perform the voice identification with Miss JK and, directed SPC PK not to interact with Miss JK during the, voice-identification procedure.
