AFCCA has put up a number of cases on their website, here are just a few.
United States v. Taylor, ACM 37065 (March 12, 2009). A case worth reading where the MJ allowed speculative testimony about date rape drug use. Affirmed.
United States v. Russell, ACM 37210 (March 12, 2009). Part way through a contested members case the prosecution asked for and got, over defense objection, a 40 day delay to get a witness whose absence from trial was caused by the government. I'd love to see the defense try that one.
United States v. Ivy, ACM S31406 (March 17, 2009). Here was an issue of improper trial counsel argument. I have no quibble with the result. I think the defense opened the door to the argument. You can't expect to offer evidence and argued that the accused learns with mistakes, and expect the trial counsel not to point out a lengthy disciplinary history. That history seems to belie a person who "learned from his mistakes." But one of the justifications strikes me as being faulty.
The lack of defense objection is some measure of the minimal impact of trial counsel's improper argument.
I understand that is often a factor, but why. Why should trial counsel have the benefit of putting the defense in the position of having to choose to object or not? Why should the defense have to decide whether to object and highlight something, or let it go hoping there's no impact?