(1) No. 07-0229/NA. U.S. v. Laprie D. TOWNSEND. CCA 200501197. Review granted on the following issue: Whether the military judge erred when he denied Appellant's challenge for cause against lieutenant [B].
The NMCCA summarized the facts of the voir dire as follows:
The individual voir dire of LT B provided the following information about that member. First, LT B had attended the non-lawyer legal officer course; however, he would follow the military judge’s instructions even if they differed from what he learned in his previous training. Second, at the time of trial, LT B was attending law school and was taking a criminal law class, in which he was studying the concepts of self-defense, the use of force, the theories of intent, and cooling-off period. However, he stated that he could follow the military judge’s instructions even if they differed from what he learned at law school and from his own personal experience. Third, LT B hoped to become a criminal prosecutor, but that didn’t influence him or bias him toward the prosecution. He stated that the accused had to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Fourth, LT B’s father is in law enforcement and LT B had a healthy respect for law enforcement personnel. However, he would follow the military judge’s instruction to use the same factors when weighing the credibility of a Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Agent as he would any other witness. Fifth, LT B had high respect for military defense counsel because they were officers and therefore had high ethics and morals. LT B had less respect for defense counsel depicted on television and those out in the civilian world. Record at 216-38.United States v. Townsend, NMCCA 200501197 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2007). Apparently the defense counsel in this case was a military officer.
(2) No. 07-0412/AR. U.S. v. Kerry T. WRIGHT II. CCA 20051233. Review was granted on the following issue: Whether the Army Court Of Criminal Appeals erred in finding appellant's plea of guilty to the specification of charge I and to charge I, false official statement, provident when the statement in question was not, in fact, false.
I could not find the ACCA opinion on its website.
(3) No. 07-0553/NA. U.S. v. Christopher A. BOLSINS. CCA 200602408. Review was granted on the following issue: Whether the action of the Court of Criminal Appeals in affirming a Clause 2 (service discrediting conduct) offense under Article 134, UCMJ, after it found charged Clause 3 (crime and offense not capital) offense to be improvident, added an element to the offense in contravention of Apprendi v. New jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), and Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989).
Not sure of the facts as I couldn’t find the NMCCA opinion on this case.