The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) has recently overruled a decision in United States v. Lancaster that removed punishment from using prescription drugs for any purpose other than the treatment of the illness or injury for which they were originally prescribed by a physician. The new statement labels the previous decision as “erroneous” and “contrary” … Read more
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) has reversed the ruling of the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) that originally upheld a conviction in United States v. Darnall. The CAAF found no substantial evidence for Darnall to have ever been detained and questioned by investigators, which poses a direct violation of the … Read more
A three-judge panel of the Navy-Marine Corp CCA (NMCCA) just granted an alleged victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus in J.M. v. Payton-O’Brien and Ravenscraft. The petition reversed the military judge’s ruling that ordered the disclosure of parts of her mental health records to the defense. The military judge’s decision was based on the excised … Read more
In a confusing move, a three-judge panel of the Army CCA granted a petition for a writ of mandamus for an alleged victim under Article 6B, which reversed a military judge’s ruling that ordered the alleged victim’s mental health records be produced for an in camera review (when a hearing is held before the judge in private … Read more
In the Army case of United States v. Commisso, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) found the military judge abused his discretion when he denied a post-trial motion for mistrial based on dishonest answers from three members during voir dire (a preliminary examination of a witness or a juror by a … Read more
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) has summarily reversed the United State Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) decision regarding United States v. Brantley. The reversal was based upon confused legal definitions and languages brought forth and maintained by the prosecution during trial procedures. Defendant Mitchell L. Brantley was accused of allegedly touching … Read more
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) has dismissed two charges in United States v. Reese, a military law case originating from the Coast Guard. The first charge was dismissed on the grounds that it was caused by “an improper major change” during trial proceedings. The second charge was dismissed after the CAAF determined … Read more
The Navy-Marine Corps Criminal Court of Appeals (NMCCA) has reversed multiple serious crime convictions, including rape and kidnapping, following a thorough review of United States v. Hale. The reversal of these convictions has also halted a 26-year confinement sentencing. After it was found that there was significant conflicts of interests among three parties in the case, … Read more
On Monday, May 22, 2017, a divided court finally came to the conclusion that the conduct of senior Air Force officials created an appearance of unlawful command influence (UCI) in the case of United States v. Boyd. The court also did not find prejudice to Boyce, concluding that any disinterested observer would doubt the fairness of … Read more
In the Army case of United States v. Hendrix, the court initially decided to convict Specialist (E-4) Austin L. Hendrix of one specification of sexual abuse of a child. However, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) concluded a voice lineup was so flawed it rendered the result meaningless. The admission of evidence … Read more
