On Friday, November 9, CAAF docketed a certificate for review in United States v. Schell, No. 13-5001/AR, on the following issues:

I. Whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred when, contrary to the plain language of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), United States v. Brooks, 60 M.J. 495 (C.A.A.F. 2005), and the United States Courts of Appeals, the service court held that “the intent element of attempted persuasion, inducement, or enticement requires [that] the accused. . .must intend that the minor, ultimately, actually engage in illegal sexual activity as a result of his persuasion, inducement, or enticement.”

II. Whether the accused’s unsworn statement during the sentencing phase of trial was inconsistent with his guilty plea.

Col Sullivan covered the ACCA’s published opinion in Schell in this post, in which he wrote:

I’ll be surprised if the Judge Advocate General of the Army doesn’t certify this one to CAAF.

Comments are closed.