In this episode we discuss the case of United States v. Urieta, where CAAF found an abuse of discretion in a military judge's failure to grant a defense challenge for implied balance in light of the liberal grant mandate.&nbs...

This week we discuss the CAAF case of United States v. Greene-Watson, which is another case addressing Military Rule of Evidence 404(b) and the very thin line between common scheme or plan and propensity under CAAF's recent case law.  We a...

In this episode Sam Castanien and Trevor Ward return with a great discussion on Free Speech law in military justice - particularly in regard to the possession of obscene cartoon, anime, or computer generated images that the government attempts ...

Today we discuss the CAAF case of United States v. Campos, decided on February 19, 2025.  It is an important case for defense counsel because the court provides important distinctions between what might be admissible as aggravation evidenc...

This week we discuss United States v. Davis, where the majority at CAAF held that where a military judge removes himself from a case to avoid granting a defense motion, and then details a different judge to the same case in hopes of the motion ...

In this episode we discuss the CAAF case of United States v. Shelby, which was an Article 62 appeal of the military judge dismissing an abusive sexual contact charge with prejudice.  The CAAF held that the military judge abused his discret...

In today's episode we discuss the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals case of United States v. Rocha, which considers the constitutional protections, as set out in Lawrence v. Texas, to private, secret, solitary masturbation ...

In today's episode we discuss the recent Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals case of United States v. Doroteo, where the court discussed three important issues for defensive litigation:  1) liberal discovery rules applic...

Happy Holidays!  Today's episode discusses the recent CAAF case of United States v. Wells, where Airman Wells asserted that Clause 2 of Article 134 (acts made criminal where they act is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed serves)...

Today we discuss a NMCCA case that dismisses an illegal drug use charge under Article 112a, UCMJ, for being factually insufficient.  The case provides a great vehicle for discussing the permissive inference instruction and how defenders sh...

This week we discuss the case of United States v. Guihama, where the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces revisits the issue of the quantum of evidence required to corroborate a confession before the confession can be admitt...

[Revised]  In this week's episode we discuss United States v. Flanner; an opinion from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces that walks back CAAF's earlier proclamation that the right to counsel attaches earlier in military justice tha...

This week we hear from Sam Castinien and Trevor Ward on major developments in Free Speech law in the military.  The issue is raised in United States v. Smith, which was decided by CAAF on September 13, 2024.  We then hear from first-t...

Today we discuss the recent and significant case of United States v. Mendoza, where CAAF holds that evidence that a named victim lacked the capacity to consent due to impairment by drugs or alcohol, will not support a convict...

In today's episode we discuss the CAAF decision in United States v. Strong, where CAAF creates a new definition of "seize" applicable only to electronic data for the offense of Prevention of Authorized Seizure of Property, Article...

In this, the last episode of Season 3, we discuss HVZ v. U.S., where CAAF found that MRE 513(e) gives patient's standing to the extent that they have a right to be heard on a defense motion to compel their mental health records regardless of wh...

In this week's episode we discuss United States v. Grijalva.  In this case the government had an Article 117a (wrongful distribution of intimate visual images) offense but didn't think it could prove a direct and palpable connection to a m...

In today's episode we hear from Lt Col Tony Ghiotto (a.k.a Professor Ghiotto) on the recent Supreme Court Case of Diaz v. United States, which speaks to how close an expert may come to providing an opinion on a ultimate issue (such as whether t...

It is Case-A-Palooza!  In this episode we discuss two CAAF cases and then quickly touch on two SCOTUS cases.  United States v. Keago is a CAAF opinion holding that a military judge abused her discretion by failing to grant two defense...

In this (lengthy) episode we discuss the recent CAAF case of United States v. Cole, where the CAAF set aside the sentence because it was far from clear whether the military judge was punishing A1C Cole for the crime he pled guilty to, or the mo...

In this week's episode we discuss United States v. Wilson, where the CAAF reviews the admission of MRE 404(b) evidence for an abuse of discretion.  The opinion provides helpful guidance and helpful language for defenders in defending off t...

In this episode we discuss the recent case of United States v. Rocha, where the CAAF reversed the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, which found that the enumerated Article 134 offense of Indecent Conduct, did not put Airman Rocha on notice t...

In today's episode we discuss U.S. v. McNulty, which involved a claim of IAC based on defense counsel not seeking an R.C.M. 706 inquiry, A.K.A., a sanity board.  The claim fails but the case gives us an opportunity to discuss the issues of...

The Judge Advocate General for the Navy certified two questions to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces following the N-MCCA's denial of a victim's petition for a writ of mandamus.  The CAAF doesn't answer either question, but makes i...

In this episode we discuss the CAAF case of United States v. Palik, which involves an claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a failure to raise an R.C.M. 914 (Jencks Act) motion in hopes of forcing the trial court to disregard the ...