Snuffy offered the hilarious observation that CAAF “is building a trailer park” with all of its Fosler grants. There’s another one today. In United States v. Bernard, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0293/CG (C.A.A.F. Apr. 28, 2011), CAAF granted review of this familiar 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.