Article Detail
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces hears oral arguments in Flynn Auditorium
Release Date: Nov 04, 2009
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces heard oral argument in the case of United States v. Durbin in Vanderbilt Law School’s Flynn Auditorium on November 3.
View a slide show about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces proceedings at Vanderbilt
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is a civilian court based in Washington, D.C., which exists to provide military personnel with access to civilian appellate review of decisions handed down in military courts. The Court’s five judges are appointed by the President to 15-year terms.
The Court is headed by Chief Judge Andrew S. Effron and includes Judges James E. Baker, Charles E. Erdmann, Scott W. Stucky and Margaret A. Ryan. The Court exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the armed forces on active duty and others who are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Like other federal appellate courts, cases on the Court’s docket address a broad range of legal issues and its decisions are subject to direct review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Oral argument was heard at Vanderbilt as part of an educational program through which the Court travels to two law schools and two military bases each year to hear arguments before law students and military personnel.
The case before the Court, United States v. Durbin, concerned whether the appellant could claim a marital privilege of confidential communication between spouses over his wife’s portion of a private conversation between the couple concerning images the wife discovered on her husband’s laptop computer. A military judge had found that the appellant could claim privilege only for his portion of the conversation and not for his wife’s. Another issue before the Court involved whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals had erred in finding that the lower court’s admission of testimony regarding the appellant’s act of showing his wife that he had deleted the pictures from the computer, found to be in violation of the marital privilege over confidential communications, was harmless error.
U.S. Air Force Major Coretta Gray, Class of 2001, served as counsel for the U.S. government, while the appellant was represented by Air Force Captain Marla Gillman. Scott Goldman, Class of 2009, who is serving as clerk for Chief Judge Effron during 2009-10, also attended the proceedings.
A team of Vanderbilt students participating in the Appellate Litigation Clinic, Andrew Free and Chris Hamp-Lyons, filed an amicus brief in support of the appellant, and Hamp-Lyons argued the amicus position before the Court. “This case presented a complex issue of statutory interpretation and the development of evidentiary privilege law in the military, Article III, and state courts,” Professor Alistair Newbern, who teaches the Appellate Clinic, said. “ Chris and Andrew mastered the different bodies of law and argued to the Court that, although the military and federal rules were different in scope, both prevented the admission of one spouse’s testimony where it would reveal the other spouse’s confidential communications.”
"It was incredible to experience the practice of law in an appellate setting and get to help shape the law," Hamp-Lyons said. "I'm thankful to Professor Newbern and Vanderbilt for giving me such an amazing opportunity, and to Andrew, who did a huge amount of work on the brief and helped me get ready to argue. This was a great team effort that involved a lot of hard work from all three of us, but it was worth every minute."
"Working on this case gave us an opportunity that is exceedingly rare for law students, namely, a chance to research, draft, file, moot, and argue an appellate brief all with the course of roughly 12 weeks," Free said. "I'm extraordinarily grateful to Chris, Professor Newbern, and all involved at each stage for such a unique pedagogical and practical experience."
Professor Mike Newton worked with Professor Newbern to arrange for the law school to host the oral argument. The proceedings were followed by a reception hosted by the Criminal Justice Program.
