Another government “appeal”

CAAF’s Journal for 28 February:

No. 11-5003/NA. U.S. v. Thomas J. HAYES. CCA 201000366. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues: WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLANT’S UNSWORN STATEMENT DURING PRESENTENCING RAISED THE “POSSIBLE DEFENSE” OF DURESS. WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE ACCUSED’S UNSWORN STATEMENT RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF A DEFENSE WHEN THE FACTS ON THE RECORD DID NOT ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR DURESS. WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS AND SENTENCE DUE TO THE MILITARY JUDGE’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE APPELLANT’S PLEA FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF A DURESS DEFENSE BECAUSE SUICIDE CANNOT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, BE THE THREAT NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENSE OF DURESS.

You may already have seen the entry for 25 February:

No. 11-6003/AR. U.S., Appellant v. Michael A. PRINCE, Appellee. CCA 20100939. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue: WHETHER THE U.S. ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE MILITARY JUDGE’S RULING TO SUPPRESS THE ACCUSED’S STATEMENTS TO A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION COMMAND (CID) AGENT.