An alert reader sent us this change to the Military Judges’ Benchbook in response to CAAF’s opinion in United States v. Prather, 69 M.J. 338 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

5 Responses to “Prather amendment to Military Judges’ Benchbook”

  1. Stewie says:


    a. is this severing copacetic?

    b. does it answer the mail on the constitutionality issue?

  2. publius says:

    Good news. It would be a shame if young trial counsel did not have to go through the military justice’s most hallowed hazing ritual– losing sexual assault cases.

  3. Personality Disorder Separation says:

    A military judge can say that he is “constitutionally interpreting Congressional intent while avoiding instructional error” all he wants, but the reality is that he is purposefully avoiding the clear and ambiguous intent of Congress. If I go into a store and point a gun at the clerk at the register, aren’t I still guilty of armed robbery even if I ask the clerk “hey, can you look down the barrel of this 9 mil to see if there’s bubble gum stuck inside?”

    What is the role of the drafters of the Army Benchbook? Do they see it as their mission the neutral and even-handed drafting of instructions or is part of their role advocacy for the Government in order to save flawed statutes?

  4. Personality Disorder Separation says:

    clear and UNambiguous, I mean.

  5. Mike No Man Navarre says:

    You need to send us something top verify you ID, otherwise future comments won't be approved.