LSU Law students (from left to right) Broxton Lance Harvey , Kimberly Cook, Angelle Boudreaux, U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals Senior Appellate Military Judge Natalie D. Richardson, Hannah Turner, John Arboleda, and Chad Thornton at the reception in the Student Lounge following the March 22 hearing the Robinson Courtroom.
When the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals held oral arguments at the LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center in March—providing six LSU Law students with the rare privilege to submit amicus curiae briefs and argue them before a three-judge panel—the case in question “looked fairly routine,” in the sense that it would be decided by the panel in due course after hearing argument.
That’s according to Charlton Meginley, an LSU Law alumnus (’02) who’s more than a little familiar with the operations of the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. In January, Meginley retired as an Air Force Colonel and Appellate Military Judge on the court, and today he serves as general counsel for the Louisiana Secretary of State.
The case, United States v. Cabuhat, involved multiple convictions against the appellant, including a conviction for indecent conduct in the presence in front a child, a charge which the appellant pleaded guilty to at his trial. On appeal, the appellant challenged whether his plea of guilty to this charge was provident. At issue was a question of whether the child had to be aware of the indecent conduct; in this case, the child was unaware of appellant’s conduct when he committed his acts.
Given the relatively routine nature of the case heard at LSU Law, Meginley was “pretty surprised” when he received the court’s published decision on Sept. 13.
“I hate to use the word ‘unicorn,’ but this really is a one-of-a-kind opinion for a number of reasons,” said Meginley, who played a key role in bringing the court to LSU Law and observed the oral arguments at his alma mater. “It may not have seemed like a very complex case, but it’s clear now that the LSU Law students participated in a case that turned out to be far more significant than it originally appeared to be.”
According to Meginley, there were three factors that made this case unique. The first is that it ended as an en banc opinion. In other words, at some point during the court’s discussion and review of the initial opinion, other judges believed the court as a whole should speak on this issue.
“En banc decisions are rare for a military service court,” said Meginley, noting there had only been a couple during his tenure on the court.
Second, the decision overruled previous precedent set by the court on the issue at hand. Finally, this was a published opinion, which again Meginley stated was rare.
“During my time on the court, we rendered over 400 decisions and orders and there were only four or five published decisions,” he noted. “Not only was this a published decision, but it was not a unanimous decision. This was an 8-2 decision with a dissenting opinion, as two judges disagreed the ruling. As amicus counsel, the students’ earning publication in the military reporter is a significant accomplishment.”
Six LSU Law students were selected to submit amicus briefs in advance of the March 22 hearing, and two of them—Chad Thornton and Hannah Turner—argued their briefs before the court. The four other LSU Law students selected to submit amicus briefs prior to the hearing were John Arboleda, Angelle Boudreaux, Kimberly Cook, and Broxton Lance Harvey. All of the students graduated as part of the LSU Law Class of 2023. Charles Watkins, who served as LSU Law Advocacy Fellow, supervised the students’ work as they prepared their briefs and assisted them in the hearing. All six students, Watkins, and LSU Law Professor Jeff Brooks, who also served as a supervising attorney, are named in the published opinion.
As to why the case turned out to be far more consequential than it originally appeared to be, Meginley said it’s very possible that the LSU Law students played a role.
“I suspect something in the briefs, whether it was from the LSU Law students or the appellate counsel, caused members from the court to step in and say, ‘Hold on, we really need to take a closer look at this,’” he said.
Six months after the court’s visit to LSU Law, Meginley said he’s still hearing positive comments about it and the students’ performance from his former colleagues at the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.
“They were fantastic,” he said of the LSU Law students. “Upfront, the students were given a tough case. These were difficult facts, particularly given that a child was involved. All of the students were well prepared, especially considering they didn’t have any previous experience before a military court, which is not the same as filing a brief or arguing before a municipal court. They should all be very proud of how they prepared, performed, and represented LSU Law. Through their efforts, LSU Law will be forever linked with the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.”
Located at Andrews Air Force Base in Prince George’s County, Maryland, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is an independent appellate judicial body authorized by Congress and established by the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. It hears and decides appeals of United States Air Force court-martial convictions and appeals pendente lite. Its appellate judges are assigned to the Court by The Judge Advocate General, whom instructs court-martial convening authorities to take action in accordance with the Court’s decisions. The court has previously visited law schools at George Washington University Law School, University of California – Hastings Law School, and Penn State Law School, among others, as part of its public outreach program.
The court’s opinion in United States v. Cabuhat, No. ACM 40191, __ M.J. __, 2023 CCA LEXIS 387 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 13 Sep. 2023) (en banc), can be found at https://afcca.law.af.mil/afcca_opinions/cp/cabuhat_-_40191_pub_en_banc_1419135.pdf.
