The other four are: (1) a UCI issue in an Army case, United States v. Reed, __ M.J. ___ No. 07-0114/AR (C.A.A.F. June 15, 2007) (I really can't tell you a lot more than that; the issue isn't very enlightening and I can't find the opinion below); (2) another case construing Crawford v. Washington, this time whether two Virginia lab reports were testimonial hearsay, United States v. Harcrow, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0135/MC (C.A.A.F. June 15, 2007) (NMCCA's unpublished decision is here); (3) an Air Force case asking the very informative question: WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE SEARCH OF APPELLANT'S PERSONAL COMPUTER IN LIGHT OF APPELLANT'S REVOCATION OF CONSENT, HIS SUBSEQUENT ACQUIESCENCE TO PRESSURE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE TO THE FACTS. SEE GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), seeking reversal of an unpublished Judge Mathews the Great decision, United States v. Wallace, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0194/AF (C.A.A.F. June 15, 2007) (JMTG's opinion for AFCCA is here); and (4) an Army case presenting these two unlikely issues:
WHETHER SENDING, VIA A CHAT SESSION, A HYPERLINK TO A YAHOO! BRIEFCASE CONTAINING IMAGES OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONSTITUTES KNOWINGLY AND WRONGFULLY DISTRIBUTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE THROUGH THE INTERNET, IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SECTION 2252A(a)(1) OR CLAUSE 1 OR 2 OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
WHETHER UTILIZING A PUBLIC COMPUTER TO VIEW IMAGES OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONTAINED IN A YAHOO! BRIEFCASE, AND ACCESSED VIA A HYPERLINK, SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTS A CONVICTION FOR KNOWINGLY AND WRONGFULLY POSSESSING ELECTRONIC IMAGES OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN VIOLATION OF CLAUSE 1 OR 2 OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
United States v. Navrestad, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0199/AR (C.A.A.F. June 14, 2007).
So CAAF may actually have something to do in October.