Link here.  Reading.  Still reading.  Still reading.

3 Responses to “CAAF issues King opinion”

  1. Kim Jong-Un says:

    OK, I’ll be the first to say it.  Not sure if anyone else is having this problem, but I don’t get this opinion.  I’ve read it a few times and still don’t get it.  What is the court’s holding here?  The issue was whether charging “indecent language” states the offense of “indecent acts.”  I think they are saying yes – but are they? But then a couple of quick twists and turns later, we have them affirming on the LIO of attempt.  My great and magnificent brain cannot process this.

  2. John Harwood says:

    So if I understand their opinion correctly, since the poor young woman didn’t lift her shirt, it wasn’t a completed offense but only an attempt?  If, however, she had lifted her shirt, it would have been a completed offense?  The logic of this escapes me for this reason: in what other offense under the Code is an action on the part of the victim a necessary element of a completed offense, particularly in a sex offense?  The definition of “Indecent” makes no mention of victim participation, nor any particular effect upon a victim.  Rather, it focuses on the conduct of the Accused and the conduct’s nature to “degrade the morals,” etc. etc.  According to CAAF’s logic, if an Accused were standing in the Exchange making lewd suggestions to passing females, the fact that none of them took up his offer would lead to a charge of attempt rather than a completed offense (if charged as Indecent Acts), right?  In this case, I think it might be worthwhile to take two steps back and see what it is that is “indecent” about the Skype scenario – is it that a young girl lifts her shirt, or isn’t it that a dirty old man asked a young girl to lift her shirt?

  3. The way I see it says:

    The way I see it, footnote 6 helps explain the opinion.  CAAF is not answering the question whether Appellant’s “request” was only language or whether it was “conduct” under Art. 120(t)(12) because it doesn’t matter in this case.  Both sides acknowledged that the request constituted an attempt, and the Court simply chose to affirm the conviction and sentence as attempt.  The unanswered question won’t come up again because Congress has revised Art. 120.  So, that’s it.