this petition for a writ of certiorari or mandamus with the Supreme Court of the United States. The case is Gray v. United States, No. 17-7769. Here are the Questions Presented:
Petitioner has substantial, unexhausted constitutional challenges to his death sentence. Congress assigned to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) mandatory appellate jurisdiction in capital cases, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(1), and the authority to issue extraordinary relief, including coram nobis, in furtherance thereof. United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 917 (2009). Accordingly, the Article III district court, consistent with traditional practice, has repeatedly declined to conduct habeas review of Petitioner’s claims until the Article I military courts address them. CAAF nevertheless refused to conduct mandatory review and held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider a petition for coram nobis in a case that is final under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Gray v. United States, 77 M.J. 5, 6 (CAAF 2017).
The Questions Presented are:
1. Which court system, Article I military or Article III civil, appropriately exercises jurisdiction in final military cases to conduct initial review of constitutional claims that arise after or in conjunction with direct appeal?The per curiam decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces can be found here.
2. Does 28 U.S.C. § 1259(1) confer certiorari jurisdiction over a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces dismissing a coram nobis petition in a military death penalty case?