Question Presented (from Petition)
I.
Whether Senior Airman James T. Cunningham was
entitled to a unanimous verdict in his court-martial
when the Government convicted him of murder—a
serious crime that had no military nexus?
II.
In finding error—but no prejudice—whether the
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces used the
correct test for prejudice when the victim impact
statement included videos, personal pictures, stock
images of future events, and lyrical music that
touched on themes of dying, saying farewell, and
becoming an angel in heaven?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Senior Airman James T. Cunningham was entitled to a unanimous verdict in his court-martial when the Government convicted him of murder—a serious crime that had no military nexus?
2024-03-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2024.
2024-02-20
Memorandum of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2024-01-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 20, 2024.
2024-01-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 19, 2024 to February 20, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-12-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 19, 2024)
2023-10-02
Application (23A283) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until December 18, 2023.
2023-09-28
Application (23A283) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 19, 2023 to December 18, 2023, submitted to The Chief Justice.