Source: http://www.caaflog.com/category/september-2011-term/united-states-v-fry/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:48:30+00:00

Document:
Yesterday the Supremes announced the denial of cert in Fry v. United States, No. 11-1395.
The cert petition in Fry v. United States, No. 11-1395, has been distributed for SCOTUS’s 9 November conference. That means we’ll probably know whether cert was granted or denied on Tuesday, 13 November.
A reply to the SG’s opp was filed on 23 October. Here’s a link to the Fry reply (hey, that rhymes!).
Here’s a link to the opposition to the cert petition that the Solicitor General filed in Fry v. United States, No. 11-1395.
Here’s a link to the cert petition in Fry v. United States, No. 11-1395, which seeks review of CAAF’s decision in United States v. Fry, 70 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2012).
Was Petitioner’s enlistment void ab inito under 10 U.S.C. § 802 and this Court’s decision in In Re Grimley, 137 U.S. 147 (1890)?
Petitioner’s counsel is CAAFlog contributor LCDR Brian Mizer.
The SG waived response to the cert petition. The cert petition hasn’t yet been distributed for conference.
CAAF’s decision in United States v. Fry, No. 11-0396/MC, 70 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 21, 2012) (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), deals with the validity of an enlistment contract where the enlistee is subject to a state-court ordered limited conservatorship.
In a 3-2 decision, Judge Stucky, joined by Judge Ryan and Senior Judge Cox, rejects the appellant’s claim that California law regarding his capacity to contract is controlling, and the court adopts the position articulated by the government at oral argument that the constructive enlistment provisions of Article 2(c) apply to this case.
Admittedly, the military judge may have overstated matters when he claimed that “all of the evidence” pointed in one direction. But when reviewed as a whole, the military judge’s ruling indicates that he considered contrary evidence and ultimately found in the face of conflicting views that the evidence better supported a finding that Appellant was mentally competent and acted voluntarily. The military judge’s findings that Appellant met the requirements for jurisdiction under Article 2(c) are fairly supported by the record and, thus, are not clearly erroneous.
[W]e cannot know if the military judge reached the right decision regarding jurisdiction, because he did not reach it the right way — by stating the standard he was applying and then analyzing and weighing all the evidence before the court, including and in particular, the testimony and declaration of Appellant’s long-term treating psychologist in light of that standard.
CAAF has decided United States v. Fry.
Stucky writes for the court and for Ryan and Cox, and Baker writes a dissent for himself and Erdmann.
We granted review to determine whether jurisdiction existed pursuant to Article 2, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 802 (2006), to try Appellant in a court-martial, despite an order from a California court that established a limited conservatorship over Appellant. We hold that jurisdiction existed pursuant to Article 2(c).
CAAF heard oral argument in United States v. Fry, No. 11-5003/NA, on 3 November at Scott Air Force Base. The case deals with the validity of an enlistment contract where the enlistee is subject to a state-court ordered limited conservatorship.
I. Appellant purportedly enlisted in the Marine Corps after a judicial determination of his incapacity to contract, which remains in effect. Was his enlistment void ab initio?
Today CAAF granted review of an exceptionally interesting personal jurisdiction issue: “APPELLANT PURPORTEDLY ENLISTED IN THE MARINE CORPS AFTER A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF HIS INCAPACITY TO CONTRACT, WHICH REMAINS IN EFFECT. WAS HIS ENLISTMENT VOID AB INITIO?” United States v. Fry, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0396/MC (C.A.A.F. May 26, 2011). NMCCA’s unpublished opinion is available here. United States v. Fry, No. NMCCA 201000179 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2011).
CAAF also expanded the Fosler Trailer Park today, specifying Fosler issues in two more cases. United States v. Arnold, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0481/AF (C.A.A.F. May 26, 2011); United States v. Geyer, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0446/MC (C.A.A.F. May 26, 2011).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 802
 v. 
 v. 
 § 802
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.