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?