CAAF today granted review of three more cases raising the Fosler issue:

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT’S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER AND JONES.

United States v. Attardo, No. 11-0401/AF; United States v. Hernandez, No. 11-0380/MC; United States v. Lumpkins, No. 11-0383/NA.

Comments are closed.