On Thursday, CAAF granted review of this issue and, more significantly, ordered that briefs be filed:  ‘WHETHER A CONTESTED ADULTERY SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT BUT THAT WAS NOT CHALLENGED AT TRIAL STATES AN OFFENSE.”  United States v. Humphries, __ M.J. __, No. 10-5004/AF (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2011).  [Disclosure:  I’m the appellate defense counsel in the case.]

One Response to “Speaking of Fosler . . .”

  1. RY says:

    I’m confused by the procedural background.  It appears AFCCA last decided the case in Aug 2011 on remand and they affirmed the findings but set aside the sentence, consistent with their original decision.  Has the convening authority acted on the sentence and AFCCA affirmed the sentence (just there’s no record on their website) or did CAAF grant review with an affirmed findings but no actual affirmed sentence?