Reloading the docket

On Thursday and Friday, CAAF issued a total of 14 opinions. To fill some of the vacant space on its docket, on Wednesday CAAF granted review of two cases, both from the Air Force. This issues in United States v. Freeman, No. 06-0833/AF are:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO SUPPRESS APPELLANT'S CONFESSION WHERE THE CONFESSION WAS NOT FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY GIVEN.

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A FORENSICALLY-QUALIFIED EXPERT CONSULTANT.

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT AND BAD CHARACTER IN VIOLATION OF MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 404(b).

The grant in Freeman came a year and a week after the Air Force Court issued its unpublished opinion. United States v. Freeman, No. ACM 35822 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. June 13, 2006).

The issue in United States v. Cucuzzella, No. 07-0397/AF, is:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN ADMISSION OF RC'S STATEMENTS TO THE REGISTERED NURSE AND SOCIAL WORKER AS MEDICAL EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY.

In sharp contrast to Freeman, CAAF granted review in Cucuzzella just less than five months after the Air Force Court's opinion. United States v. Cucuzzella, 64 M.J. 580 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2007). And, yes, since I know you are wondering, Cucuzzella was a Judge Mathews the Great opinion. We previously discussed Cucuzzella here.