Articles Tagged with afcca

AFCCA issued an opinion in United States v. Rettinghouse today.  It was an Article 62, UCMJ, appeal, with some teaching points.

I note this issue arose because of – yes – trial counsel discovery violations, and then a refusal to accede to the judge’s remedy of producing witnesses for the defense.  See a post here.

I am informed that the issue of potential Brady material came up through an inadvertent disclosure at some sort of semi-official gathering at which the trial and defense counsel were present. I likened this method of disclosure as doing a reverse Ankeny.  That’s in reference to United States v. Ankeny, 28 M.J. 780 (N.M.C.M.R. 1989).  (Interestingly this case is another CAAF case cited in a federal habeas proceeding for a non-military accused.  See Nickely v. Hannigan, 869 F. Supp. 875 (D.C. Kan. 1994).    In Ankeny it was the defense who made the inadvertent disclosure to the prosecutor. 

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals has issued an opinion in United States v. Hull.

The issues on appeal are: whether the staff judge advocate (SJA) erred by advising the convening authority (CA), pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1106, that no new trial was warranted and whether the CA erred by failing to order a new trial despite the SJA’s acknowledgement that the appellant had presented new evidence that fell within the parameters of R.C.M. 1210. Further, the appellant filed a petition for a new trial pursuant to Article 73, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 873.

AFCCA denied relief on the merits of the appeal and denied a new trial.  AFCCA reasoned that even if the information was newly discovered (AFCCA was not certain it could not have been obtained during pretrial preparations), the evidence would not,

Here is an new grant from CAAF.

No. 10-0494/AF. U.S. v. Caleb B. BEATY. CCA 37478. Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE SENTENCE MUST BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE DETERMINED THE SENTENCE BASED ON THE INCORRECT MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT.