AFCCA today issued this published opinion rejecting a defense argument that the accused didn’t have sufficient notice that viewing child pornography could be prosecuted as service discredting conduct under Article 134(2). United States v. Merritt, __ M.J. __, No. ACM 37608 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 14, 2012). Senior Judge Roan the Great wrote for a unanimous panel.
Merritt gained noteriety earlier this year when CAAF issued a show cause order in response to Merritt’s petition for a writ of mandamus arguing that his case had been unreasonably delayed and that CAAF should order AFCCA to decide it. Merritt v. United States, __ M.J. __, No. 13-8002/AF (C.A.A.F. Sept. 18, 2012). CAAF denied the Merritt mandamus petition on the same day that it issued a show case order in Carter. See Merritt v. United States, __ M.J. __, No. 13-8002/AF (C.A.A.F. Oct., 2012). CAAF subsequently ordered AFCCA to either decide Carter’s case by 11 January 2013 or explain the need for further consideration. Carter v. United States, __ M.J. __, No. 13-8006/AF (C.A.A.F. Nov. 27, 2012). Carter’s case remains undecided.