Litigator Libations

Send us Fan Mail This week, Sam and Trevor tackle two Supreme Court cases and then welcome back Mr. Darrel Johnson, the creator of Litigator Libations, to discuss Article 93a, UCMJ. The duo begins with United States v. Hemani , __ U.S. __, No. 24-1234, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 2559 (June 18, 2026). Mr. Hemani was charged with being an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance (i.e., using marijua...

Send us Fan Mail This week, Sam and Trevor discuss United States v. RosarioMartinez , __M.J.__, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 485 (C.A.A.F. 2026), a case that troubles them both. There, after convicting the appellant, the senior panel member informed defense counsel that the panel had actually voted to acquit the accused. Apparently, the panel had misunderstood the voting instructions. Despite this, the CAAF de...

Send us Fan Mail On this week's episode, Sam and Trevor tackle the CAAF's most recent decision on the good faith exception: United States v. Johnson , No. 25-0202/AF, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 464 (C.A.A.F. May 26, 2026). Before diving into that case, though, the duo discuss a new Supreme Court case on Batson challenges: Pitchford v. Cain , No. 24-7351, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 2296 (May 28, 2026). There,...

Send us Fan Mail Prior consistent statements strike again in this week’s episode as Sam and Trevor discuss United States v. Brown , __ M.J. __, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 418 (C.A.A.F. 2026). With prior consistent cocktails in hand, the duo review the CAAF’s recent decision analyzing Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(ii), the rule covering prior consistent statements offered on “other grounds.” A majority of the co...

Send us Fan Mail This week, Sam and Trevor focus on United States v. Kershaw , No. 25-0177/AF, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 396 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 30, 2026), another divided Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) decision. Before diving into Kershaw , Sam briefly highlights that the portions of the Manual for Courts-Martial that were changed in Annex 2 of Executive Order (EO) 14103 apply to offenses that occ...

Send us Fan Mail This week, Sam and Trevor discuss a new Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) case, United States v. Washington , No. 25-0044, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 353 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 13, 2026), and then feature a trial-level practitioner, Raquel Musconi, to discuss post-trial motions. Before jumping into both, the pair cover a quick update to United States v. Marschalek , No. ACM S32776, 2026 C...

Send us Fan Mail This week, Sam and Trevor cover two cases, United States v. Braum , __M.J.__, No. 25-0046/AF, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 343 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 8, 2026), and United States v. Talley , No. ACM 40828, 2026 CCA LEXIS 171 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 9, 2026). In Braum , another divided Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) found there was no prejudice when the Government refused to turn over th...

Send us Fan Mail The case you've all been waiting for! *drumroll please*  United States v. Rocha , No. 25-0157, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 254 (C.A.A.F. Mar. 16, 2026), the child-like sex doll case, is back and finally resolved! This week, Sam and Trevor spend most of the time breaking down the various opinions in Rocha . Spoiler alert: the CAAF affirms the lower court's decision to set aside the c...

Send us Fan Mail On this week's episode, Sam and Trevor focus on a recent case from the Supreme Court, Villarreal v. Texas , 2026 U.S. LEXIS 1103 (U.S. 2026). Villarreal explains the limits on how and when a judge can prevent a testifying defendant from talking to his or her attorney during a recess. The Supreme Court discusses two major cases in resolving this issue: Geders v. United States...

Send us Fan Mail This week, Sam and Trevor start off by answering a listener question about one of last episode’s cases: United States v. Kruse , No. 202500370, 2026 CCA LEXIS 13 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 21, 2026). After a brief recap and debate, the two tackle United States v. Matti , No. 25-0148, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 189 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 17, 2026), a recent Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF)...

Send us Fan Mail This week, Sam and Trevor tackle two cases that foretell the risks of prioritizing expediency over process. First, after eight years, United States v. Jacinto , No. 24-0144, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 116 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 2, 2026), comes to end. This case went up and down on appeal due to a denied continuance and in camera review request concerning medical records disclosed on the “eve” of tri...

Send us Fan Mail This week, Sam and Trevor discuss four of the latest Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces opinions. The first case they cover is United States v. Malone , No. 25-0140, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 62 (C.A.A.F. Jan. 20, 2026), which addresses how defense counsel can waive multiplicity issues. But the CAAF’s reasoning also strongly suggests that ineffective assistance of counsel claims may incr...

Send us Fan Mail For the 100th episode of Litigator Libations, Sam and Trevor keep it short and sweet. They discuss two recent decisions. First, they talk about Case v. Montana , No. 24-624, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 432 (Jan. 14, 2026), from the Supreme Court. Case reaffirms Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U.S. 398 (2006), which discussed the proper test for the emergency assistance exception to the warrant r...

Send us Fan Mail Happy New Year, everyone! This week, Sam and Trevor cover two cases where the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) analyzes the purported arbitrary application of military rules of evidence. The first is United States v. Maebane , No. 24-0196, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 772 (C.A.A.F. Sep. 18, 2025). In this 3-2 decision, the CAAF overturned a conviction where a third party’s confessi...

Send us Fan Mail In their last episode of 2025, Sam and Trevor discuss all things waiver.  There are four cases on the agenda, so buckle-up! First, United States v. Arroyo , 2025 CAAF LEXIS 688 (C.A.A.F. Aug. 19, 2025), which deals with how and why an appellate court can consider that an appellant got the “benefit of the bargain” from a plea agreement during its sentence appropriateness analysis....

Send us Fan Mail Happy Thanksgiving! This week, Sam and Trevor tackle United States v. Gonzalez , 2025 CAAF LEXIS 761 (C.A.A.F. 2025), and United States v. Ruiz , 2025 CAAF LEXIS 656 (C.A.A.F. 2025). While both cases have some interesting facts, they also have big takeaways for trial practitioners.  In Gonzalez , we see the first effects of United States v. George , 85 M.J. 133 (C.A.A.F. 2024), wh...

Send us Fan Mail This week, Sam and Trevor tackle United States v. Downum , __ M.J. __, No. 24-0156/AR, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 828 (C.A.A.F. Sep. 30, 2025). Well, sort of. In Downum , the CAAF makes an interesting point about what is required to invoke the permissive inference for unlawful use of a controlled substance under Article 112a, UCMJ. The CAAF seems to imply that the Government “must” present c...

Send us Fan Mail Nothing is spookier this Hallow’s Eve than the Government failing to provide evidence to criminal defendants. In their Halloween special, Sam and Trevor untangle the web that is United States v. Secord , __ M.J. __, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 646 (C.A.A.F. 2025), a case about digital data and R.C.M. 701 possession. Then, they turn to a case straight out of the twilight zone, United States v....

Send us Fan Mail In their debut episode as hosts, Sam and Trevor discuss the recent CAAF decision, United States v. Casillas , __ M.J. __, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 692 (C.A.A.F. 2025). Casillas clarifies (or confuses?) the holding in United States v. Mendoza , 85 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 2024), that cases charging a “without consent” theory of liability under Article 120, UCMJ, cannot be proven where the complai...

Send us Fan Mail In today's episode we say farewell to long-time host Darrel Johnson and officially welcome our new hosts, Sam Castanien and Trevor Ward!  In so doing, we discuss United States v. Saul & United States v. Navarro-Aguire, two cases that speak to the providence of a guilty plea and the importance of clarifying inconsistencies during the Care inquiry.  We then discuss United S...

Send us Fan Mail In this week's episode we discuss one CAAF case, one N-MCCA case, and the reversing the script on MRE 404(b).  The CAAF case is United States v. Patterson, where CAAF declines to second guess the AFCCA on factual sufficiency because it is statutorily restricted to reviewing questions of law.  The N-MCCA case has several issues, including the permissive inference in a no-BCD S...

Send us Fan Mail In today's episode we discuss two cases from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces:  United States v. Johnson, which cements the conclusion that military appellate courts will not correct an erroneous indorsement to the Statement of Trial Results or Entry of Judgment requiring firearm prohibitions; and United States v. Thomas, which discusses the burdens on the defense an...

Send us Fan Mail In this week's (lengthy) episode we discuss United States v. Taylor, which deals with the statutory requirements that must be satisfied when involuntarily recalling a reserve member to active duty for purposes of court-martial (and how they differ from the statutory requirements that must be satisfied to subject the reservist to UCMJ jurisdiction).  We then discuss United Sta...

Send us Fan Mail This week we discuss  United States v. Brinkman-Coronel,  where the CAAF acknowledges that cellular phones are unique under the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment analysis, but then presses on to treat third party consent to the search of a cell phone in the same manner as third party consent to search a brief case.  Disappointing.  We then hear from Captain Elliot Ko with a ve...

Send us Fan Mail In this week's episode we discuss the AFCCA case of  United States v. Hunt,  where the AFCCA applies the new factual sufficiency analysis and concludes that the government failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- a huge defense win.  We then hear from Allen Abrams on Military Rule of Evidence 105 -- Allen does an excellent job of conveying the importance of the rule...