⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces hears Sergeant Alfaro's challenge to his court-martial conviction. A fellow soldier accused him of sexual assault after a night of drinking in his barracks room. His defense challenged the reliability of her memory. Before trial, the military judge privately screened her mental-health records, released diagnoses and prescriptions, and withheld confidential therapy communications. Alfaro's appellate lawyer says the sealed material contains exculpatory information, meaning evidence that could help his defense. That is his claim, not a finding that she lied. The Army appeals court upheld the conviction. Military Rule of Evidence five thirteen protects confidential communications with psychotherapists, subject to listed exceptions. In camera means the judge reviews material privately rather than showing it to the parties. Robert Feldmeier, for Alfaro, will argue that a judge who discovers evidence necessary for a fair defense must seek the patient's consent to disclosure or abate, meaning halt, the trial. Major Isaac Dickson, for the government, will argue that the rule does not authorize that remedy.

United States v. Rene D. Alfaro (No. 26-0170/AR) — United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, argued October 28, 2026.