tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post6943301031587694130..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: Two more oral arguments scheduledDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-87358339532150662802008-11-20T14:28:00.000-05:002008-11-20T14:28:00.000-05:00NMCCA has also scheduled oral argument for 3 Dec 2...NMCCA has also scheduled oral argument for 3 Dec 2008 in the case of US v Crotchett which is up on Art. 62 appeal after the trial judge ruled that the statute unconstitutionally shifted the burden to proof to the accused.<BR/><BR/>The issues specified by the court are:<BR/><BR/>I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ARTICLE 120, UCMJ, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED BECAUSE, WHEN THE ACCUSED ASSERTS THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF CONSENT, ARTICLES 120(c)(2), 120(r) AND (t), AND R.C.M. 916, COMBINE TO IMPERMISSIBLY SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE ACCUSED REGARDING THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT.<BR/><BR/>II. IN THE EVENT ARTICLES 120(c)(2), 120(r) AND (t), AND R.C.M. 916, COMBINE TO IMPERMISSIBLY SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE ACCUSED REGARDING THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT, IS ARTICLE 120 SEVERABLE, SUCH THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE CITED SECTIONS MAY SURVIVE CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com