No. 18-1383
James M. Hale v. United States
Response Waived
Tags: 10-usc-802 court-martial court-martial-jurisdiction general-verdict judicial-deference jurisdictional-defects jurisdictional-limits legal-sufficiency military-discipline military-discipline-jurisdiction military-law overt-acts plain-error rostker-v-goldberg sufficiency-of-evidence weiss-v-united-states
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-05-30
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in relying on factual sufficiency of the evidence to resolve a question of plain error, where the alleged error related to a legal defect in jurisdiction.
2. Whether instructions focusing "on or about" the charged dates invited a general verdict based on conduct outside of the court-martial's jurisdiction.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the court-martial had jurisdiction over the charged conduct
Docket Entries
2019-06-03
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.
2019-05-09
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-05-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 3, 2019)
Attorneys
James Hale
Anthony Dolendo Ortiz — United States Air Force, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent