(cleaned up)
Yes, back in 1976 I got my Bluebook and throughout the three years of law school, it was a regular reference. Ah, but it continues to be a daily tool–for motions, briefs, and such. I fear one day I’ll Bluebook a conversation with a relative or friend in everyday conversation.
One of the common questions is how best to quote, be it an appellate decision or a law journal. Jack Metzler proposes a solution, In Cleaning Up Quotations, to be published in 18 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS.
The CAAF daily journal for 15 June 2017 has this entry: No. 17-0003/AR. U.S. v. Christopher B. Hukill. CCA 20140939. On consideration of Appellee’s petition for reconsideration of this Court’s decision, United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2017), it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration be, and the same is, hereby denied.
To refresh.
CAAF decided the Army case of United States v. Hukill, 76 M.J. 219, No. 17-0003/AR (slip op.
), on Tuesday, May 2, 2017. A short opinion reiterates the rationale of United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. Jun. 27, 2016) . “[T]he use of evidence of charged conduct as M.R.E. 413 propensity evidence for other charged conduct in the same case is error, regardless of the forum, the number of victims, or whether the events are connected.” Slip op. at 6. CAAF reverses the decision of the Army CCA that found Hills inapplicable in judge-alone trials, reverses the appellant’s convictions, and authorizes a rehearing.
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has decided United States v. Wilson, __ M.J. __, No. 16-0267/AR, for the appellant. The issue was:
Whether the military judge erred in denying the defense motion for appropriate relief under Rule for Court-Martial 917 where the military judge improperly applied Article 130, housebreaking, to a motor pool.
A unanimous court found that the military judge erred.
In United States v. Lopez, Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, but there is no opinion on the Army court website and I don’t see it in Lexis.
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has specified an issue for review in this case as follows:
No. 16-0487/AR. U.S. v. Mario I. Lopez. CCA 20140943 [2016 CAAF LEXIS 773]. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue specified by the Court:
More information here.
No. 14-5007/AF. U.S. v. Steven S. MORITA. CCA 37838. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY FINDING THAT A RESERVIST CAN CREATE COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION BY FORGING ACTIVE DUTY ORDERS AND/OR INACTIVE-DUTY TRAINING ORDERS AND BY FINDING THAT COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION EXISTED FOR EACH 120-DAY PERIOD LISTED ON THE THREE APPLICATIONS FOR MPA MAN-DAY TOURS.
You can see an analysis of the case status here.
The other day I commented about Grostefon issues. Well, here is another example of Grostefon possibly working for the Appellant.
On Thursday CAAF granted review in the Air Force case of United States v. Yanez:
No. 14-0411/AF. U.S. v. Joseph W. YANEZ. CCA 38181. Review granted on the following issue:
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog