CAAF issued its opinion in Easton today. United States v. Easton, __ M.J. __, No. 12-0053/AR (C.A.A.F. June 4, 2012). It disagreed with ACCA as to whether the withdrawal of charges was justified by manifest necessity, but concluded that under Article 44, jeopardy had not yet attached, hence there was no double jeopardy violation in the case. It therefore affirmed ACCA’s decision.
Chief Judge Baker wrote for the majority. Judge Erdmann dissented, concluding that Article 44 is unconstitutional as applied in this case.