I have very limited computer access this week; here’s a quick note about a newly granted CAAF case featuring a Jones issue and a Fosler issue:

I.   APPELLANT WAS CHARGED WITH COMMUNICATING A THREAT UNDER ARTICLE 134, BUT WAS CONVICTED PURSUANT TO HIS PLEA OF USING PROVOKING SPEECH IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 117.  IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. JONES, 68 M.J. 465 (2010) CAN THE CONVICTION BE SUSTAINED?

II.  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. Nealy, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0615/AR (C.A.A.F. Aug. 15, 2011).

Comments are closed.