On 26 January, NMCCA will hear oral argument on this issue in United States v. Saxman:

WHETHER THIS COURT CAN CONDUCT AN ARTICLE 66, UCMJ, REVIEW WHERE THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH VIDEOS FORMED THE BASIS OF APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR KNOWING POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WHEN THE MEMBERS FOUND THE APPELLANT GUILTY BY EXCEPTIONS AND SUBSTITUTIONS OF POSSESSING ONLY FOUR OF THE CHARGED 22 VIDEOS.

That sounds fascinating.  If anyone has the briefs and wouldn’t mind throwing them over our electronic transom (caaflog@caaflog.com), we’d love to see ’em.

5 Responses to “NMCCA to consider what sounds like an interesting spin on Walters”

  1. Anon says:

    Won’t be long now until jurors are required to do detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law so that reviewing authorities can be sure a majority agreed on the same facts and theory of culpability.

  2. Phil Cave says:

    Or polling the members?

  3. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Eventually the lessons of Walters are going to filter down to the trial level (hello, JAG schools of all services, are you listening?), and these things are going to get charged in single specifications, vastly increasing the accused’s theoretical punitive exposure. Whether it will in fact increase sentences is something I won’t predict.

    I also long for the day when the words “divers occasions” are banished from charge sheets. It is truly disappointing that such an easy problem to avoid still infects the military justice system.

  4. Divers says:

    What is a good alternative to “divers.” More often than not when you are charging repeated or continuous misconduct you don’t have eact dates. If an accused admits that he smoked dope constantly for a one year period, he isn’t going to be able to know exact dates. How else then do you charge it than on “divers occasions” Plus, as you mention, charging each incident individually dramatically increases the accused’s punitive exposure.

  5. anonymous says:

    There are defense counsel in this world who would willingly accept a reversal of this conviction on a this technicality, even if all of the images were clearly 5 year olds.