CAAF today issued an opinion in United States v. Jones, No. 09-0271, reversing the Air Force Court.  Judge Ryan wrote for the majority.  Judge Baker dissented.  Because CAAF’s web site is still down, I’ve posted the majority opinion here and the dissent here.  More later.

6 Responses to “CAAF issues Jones opinion [link fixed — I hope]”

  1. Michael Lowrey says:

    The link to the majority opinion doesn’t work — it needs an “h” at the beginning of it (http… not ttp…)

  2. Christopher Mathews says:

    “[W]e return to the elements test.” Slip op. at 6.

    The interrelationships between offenses have over time grown so difficult to sort that they have been compared to the lower circles of Hell. See, e.g., United States v. Barnard, 32 M.J. 530, 537 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990). It’s interesting to see CAAF acknowledge, however obliquely, its own role in this descent.

  3. Anonymous says:

    The road to Hell will now be paved with lengthy charge sheets.

  4. Christopher Mathews says:

    Anon 1622: Judge James? Is that you?

  5. John Harwood says:

    Finally, CAAF steers us back to the only workable, consistent regimen re: LIOs — an elements test. There’s nothing worse than defending a case and its enumerated LIOs, only to have the facts come out some other way at trial, whereon the government then asks for an LIO instruction on a completely separate offense. As complex as C-M litigation can be, anything that simplifies it is welcome by me.

  6. Max Power says:

    How will this affect Art. 134 offenses as LIOs?