- Free Consultation: 703-298-9562 Tap Here to Call Us
New issues
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has been active recently in a number of grants of review. What is noteworthy has been the grant of three cases in which it was the client who raised an issue through a United States v. Grostefon pleading.
This confirms my own thought that Grostefon issues ought to be raised.
No. 16-0229/AF. U.S. v. Ellwood T. Bowen. CCA 38616. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue specified by the Court: Whether the military judge erred in applying the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule to permit the government to introduce through the testimony of law enforcement personnel that appellant’s wife nodded her head in response to a question whether her husband “did this,” and in concluding that the prejudicial effect of this testimony was outweighed by its probative value.See M.R.E. 802 and 803(2); M.R.E. 403; United States v. Donaldson, 58 M.J. 477 (2003); United States v. Jones, 30 M.J. 127 (C.M.A. 1990); United States v. Arnold, 25 M.J. 129 (C.M.A. 1987);United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 (1981). No. 16-0407/AR. U.S. v. Justin P. Swift. CCA 20100196. 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 issues raised by Appellant: I. Whether the Army court denied appellant his substantial right to an Article 66(c) review by affirming the findings and sentence on uncharged misconduct presented at trial rather than the charged offenses. II. Whether the military judge erred by admitting appellant’s pretrial statement where there was no independent evidence to corroborate the essential facts admitted. And the following issue specified by the Court: III. Whether the evidence of the two convictions of indecent acts with a child is legally sufficient.