CAAF has granted review of two more Fosler trailers with a slightly tweaked issue statement that now references the Fosler opinion:

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 OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

United States v. Tiller, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0476/AR (C.A.A.F. Aug. 22, 2011); United States v. Swensen, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0617/AF (C.A.A.F. Aug. 22, 2011).

Comments are closed.