{"id":94431,"date":"2021-09-20T08:04:06","date_gmt":"2021-09-20T12:04:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/law\/?p=94431"},"modified":"2021-09-20T08:04:06","modified_gmt":"2021-09-20T12:04:06","slug":"army-court-of-criminal-appeals-this-friday-register-today","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/law\/2021\/09\/20\/army-court-of-criminal-appeals-this-friday-register-today\/","title":{"rendered":"Army Court of Criminal Appeals this Friday – register today!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The University of Akron School of Law is pleased to host:<\/strong>    <\/strong>     <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The United States Army<\/strong> Court of Criminal Appeals<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oral argument open to all faculty, staff, students, and alumni<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case to be argued: United States v. Colon Rodriguez*<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Friday, September 24, 2021<\/strong>, 12:00PM<\/strong> David and Ann Amer Brennan Courtroom (180)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oral argument followed by Q&A with judges and advocates<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Registration required. Email Alisa Benedict O\u2019Brien<\/a> to attend.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

*STATEMENT OF THE CASE<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facts:  In January 2020, a military panel (jury) convicted appellant of two specifications of assault and one specification of domestic violence.  The panel sentenced appellant to be confined for 180 days and to be discharged from the Army with a bad-conduct discharge.  Appellant\u2019s convictions stem from incidents where he physically assaulted the victim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Appellant raised multiple issues (assignments of error) before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.  The two issues the parties will argue today are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I.  WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO EXCUSE A BIASED PANEL MEMBER.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

II.   WHETHER THE SEARCH AUTHORIZATION FOR APPELLANT\u2019S PHONE WAS UNLAWFULLY BROAD AND THE GOOD FAITH DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first issue relates to whether a particular panel member (juror) should have been a member of the panel deciding appellant\u2019s trial.  At trial, defense counsel challenged one member for actual and implied bias for three reasons:  expecting defense to present evidence, bias in favor of law enforcement, and reluctance to say he would be impartial.  Appellant argues the panel member\u2019s answers during voir dire demonstrate he did not understand or agree that the defense did not have to present any evidence in order for appellant to be found not guilty. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government (appellee) argues the military judge did not err in denying the defense counsel challenge because there was no actual or implied bias.  The government cites to the panel member\u2019s statements that he would follow the military judge\u2019s instructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second issue relates to the search of appellant\u2019s phone.  At trial, defense counsel moved to suppress the contents of appellant’s phone searched pursuant to a military magistrate authorization (search warrant).  The military judge found the magistrate did not have probable cause to grant the search authorization, but found the good-faith doctrine applied.  Appellant argues the good-faith doctrine does not apply because law enforcement could not have reasonably believed the magistrate had a sufficient basis to determine there was probable cause to believe there would be evidence of an assault on appellant\u2019s phone and law enforcement did not act in good faith. Appellant argues had the magistrate properly limited the scope of the authorization, law enforcement would never have found an incriminating text message that resulted in appellant\u2019s conviction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government argues the military judge did not abuse his discretion in determining the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to the search at issue.  The government argues the good-faith doctrine applies because:  the magistrate who issued the search authorization had the authority to do so; the agent who requested the authorization subjectively believed that probable cause existed to obtain evidence; and the agent had an objectively reasonable belief that the magistrate had a substantial basis for determining probable cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We hope to see you there!<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The University of Akron School of Law is pleased to host:          The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals Oral argument open to all faculty, staff, students, and alumni Case to be argued: United States v. Colon Rodriguez* Friday, September 24, 2021, 12:00PM David and Ann Amer Brennan Courtroom (180) Oral argument followed by … Continue reading “Army Court of Criminal Appeals this Friday – register today!”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1254,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94431","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1254"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94431"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94431\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":94435,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94431\/revisions\/94435"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}