Monday, November 19, 2007

CAAF to review two member challenge cases

On Friday, CAAF granted review of two members challenge cases. But I have no idea what either one of them is about.

Here's the granted issue in United States v. Bragg, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0382/MC (C.A.A.F. Nov. 16, 2007): "WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE MILITARY JUDGE'S DENIAL OF THE CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL [W.]." I have no idea why the defense thinks LtCol Wood should have been bounced or why Judge Chester thought he shouldn't have been. Unfortunately, the Navy-Marine Corps Court's opinion is similarly unenlightening. The Navy-Marine Corps Court's unpublished opinion in Bragg is available here. United States v. Bragg, No. NMCCA 200600228 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 21, 2007). In Bragg, the defense raised eleven assignments of error before the Navy-Marine Corps Court. That court discussed six of them. Issue VII -- "the military judge erred by denying a defense challenge for cause against Lieutenant Colonel (LtCol) Wood" -- didn't make the cut. See id., slip op. at 2 n.1.

Could one of our naval readers please relieve my curiosity by letting us know why the defense thinks LtCol Wood shouldn't have sat as a member?

Now here's the granted issue in United States v. Elfayoumi, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0346/AR (C.A.A.F. Nov. 16, 2007): "WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE DENIED THE DEFENSE COUNSEL'S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAINST MAJOR [L.G.], A PANEL MEMBER, FOR IMPLIED BIAS." I can't find ACCA's opinion from Elfayoumi anywhere online. Could one of our Army lurkers let us know what the defense's beef with MAJ L.G. is?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

In Bragg, during voir dire, LtCol W indicated that he may have seen the relief for cause investigative report into the charges against the appellant involving recruiter misconduct and that he also may have read about the allegations in the newspaper.

In Elfayoumi, during voir dire, Maj G said that he believed that homosexuality and possessing pornography were morally wrong. The case involved charges that the appellant, a male, had sexually assaulted and sodomized several males.