Last week, AFCCA issued this published opinion applying Humphries to uphold a conviction where a contested Article 134 communicating a threat spec failed to allege a terminal element but the accused pleaded guilty to another Article 134 communicating a threat spec for which the military judge advised him of the terminal elements.  United States v. Walters, __ M.J. __, No. ACM 37873 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 6, 2012).  Senior Judge Gregory wrote for a unanimous panel.

It isn’t apparent to me why the opinion — which is highly fact specific and would seem to apply to a universe of one case — is published.  Any theories?

One Response to “Published AFCCA Fosler/Humphries trailer”

  1. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Because it denies the appeal (see unpublished Humphries sustained appeal here)?  I don’t know if that’s thereal reason, but does 2 make a trend?  The CCAs are famous for not publishing significant decisions (here), so it makes sense to also be famous for publishing insignificant decisions.