to let you know that CAAF has issued two opinions while we were distracted by the NDAA changes.
Payne reminds them that a judge is supposed to give correct instructions; here the judge got it wrong, but so what, it was harmless BRD. Of note to defense counsel, when objecting to a judge’s instructions don’t be “general,” have some specificity. The analysis of how specific an objection was new to CAAF. But they found that they could safely compare the specificity for preserving an evidentiary objection to that of preserving an instructions objection. Perhaps a military judge faced with a rather general objection could task both sides to be a tad more specific, to help her understand the problem.
Passut is quite simple. When a servicemember goes to the Exchange to cash a check to pay for items, he or she is making an official statement that may be prosecuted under UCMJ art. 107, if in the process there are false statements or representations.