CAAF Grants Petitions

In yesterday's Daily Journal, CAAF announced grants of review on the following issues:

No. 05-0159/AR. U.S. v. Jeremy T. WILCOX. CCA 20000876. Review granted on the following specified issue:

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION THAT APPELLANT'S STATEMENTS TO AN UNDERCOVER NCIS AGENT ON THE INTERNET WERE EITHER DETRIMENTAL TO GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE OR OF A NATURE TO BRING DISCREDIT UPON THE ARMED FORCES WHEN THE MILITARY NEXUS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD CONSISTED OF APPELLANT'S REFERENCE TO BEING A "US ARMY PARATROOPER," AND HIS STATEMENTS RAISE A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.


No. 07-0555/AR. U.S. v. Daniel ORTIZ. CCA 20040672. Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE EXCLUDED THE PUBLIC FROM THE COURTROOM WHEN THE VICTIM, BP, TESTIFIED ON THE MERITS.


No. 07-0612/AR. U.S. v. Brandon M. DACUS. CCA 20050404. Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEAS TO SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE I, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, WHERE APPELLANT DID NOT ADMIT FACTS THAT OBJECTIVELY SUPPORTED HIS PLEAS DURING THE PROVIDENCE INQUIRY, AND INTRODUCED EVIDENCE THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY INCONSISTENT WITH HIS PLEAS DURING PRESENTENCING.


The issue before the court in Wilcox, concerns an accused who communicated with an undercover policeman about his pro-white beliefs. Appellant referred the undercover policeman to pro-white activist literature After remand by CAAF, the ACCA held that "a rational trier of fact could have reasonably determined appellant’s statements were anti-government and disloyal, advocated extreme racial intolerance, and, under the circumstances of this case, were prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting." Appellant ended a chat session with the following words: “[B]e white, act white, think white,[ and] may GOD be with you.” The sole nexus to the military is the fact that in his AOL profile, the appellant claimed he was a U.S. Army paratrooper and a pro-white activist.

The ACCA opinions in Ortiz and Dacus are not available on the Army's website. Me thinks that may mean the ACCA handled these case in summary dispositions. Perhaps some of the Army practitioners can enlighten us on the facts of those cases.