CAAF grants two Air Force cases

On Wednesday, CAAF granted review of two Air Force cases.

United States v. Bare, No. 06-0911/AF, asks

WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. BERRY, 61 M.J. 91 (C.A.A.F. 2005) AND UNITED STATES v. MCDONALD, 59 M.J. 426 (C.A.A.F. 2004), EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED SEXUAL ACTS BETWEEN APPELLANT, WHEN HE WAS AN ADOLESCENT, AND HIS SISTER WAS IMPROPERLY ADMITTED AND MATERIALLY PREJUDICED APPELLANT.

The opinion of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, which answered that question with a resounding "no," is published at 63 M.J. 707 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2006).

In United States v. Carr, No. 06-0758/AF, CAAF granted the petition to review

WHETHER APPELLANT'S PLEAS OF GUILTY TO ASSAULT CONSUMMATED BY BATTERY WERE IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE EVIDENCE ADDUCED DURING HIS PROVIDENCE INQUIRY INDICATED THAT HE OBTAINED CONSENT FROM THE ALLEGED VICTIMS DUE TO FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, RATHER THAN FRAUD IN THE FACTUM.

This is another one of those cases that is far more interesting than anyone would ever guess from the wording of the issue presented. See generally "A table setting contest," 3 Oct 2006, http://caaflog.blogspot.com/2006/10/table-setting-contest. Here's a brief excerpt from the Air Force Court's opinion: "[A]ppellant frequently pulled duty in the motor pool, but in his spare time devoted his energies and attention to passing himself off as a doctor. He obtained a number of medical textbooks and paraphernalia associated with the medical profession, including syringes, swabs, hospital gowns, and a speculum. He outfitted himself with a pager and cell phone and told women he met that he was an on-call doctor at a local obstetrics and gynecology clinic. He became sufficiently conversant with terms and concepts associated with the field of gynecology to convince a number of women that he actually was a doctor studying to become a specialist in that field." United States v. Carr, 63 M.J. 615, 617 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2006). To quote Roxy Music, "Dim the lights, you can guess the rest." Well, except for one specific detail, which no one would guess: "none of the exams were conducted at a doctor's office, hospital, or clinic. Instead, most were in hotel rooms, and one was done in the back of a U-Haul truck." Id. A U-Haul truck?

I don't know Judge Mathews, but kudos to him for a well-written and well-reasoned opinion.

--Dwight Sullivan