CAAFlog » September 2011 Term » United States v. Goodman

In the third opinion of the term, Judge Stucky writes for a majority (with Judge Erdmann dissenting) in United States v. Goodman, No. 11-0389, 70 M.J. 396 (C.A.A.F. Dec. 8, 2011) (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), finding that the military judge did not err in accepting a plea of guilty where the Appellant statements during the plea inquiry did not rise to the level of a mistake of fact defense to the charged offense of sexual harassment in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. However, CAAF remanded the case to the ACCA for Fosler consideration of other offenses charged under Article 134.

At CAAF, the Appellant “assert[ed] that his statements during the plea inquiry — that he thought his comments to PFC L were welcomed — raised the issue of mistake of fact, that because the military judge failed to secure a disclaimer of the defense an inconsistency in his guilty plea was unresolved, and therefore, his conviction should be set aside.”

Read more »

United States v. Goodman, Army.  4 (Stucky [W], Baker, Ryan, Effron), Dissent in part (Erdmann).  No error in failing to address possible affirmative defense in GP case, because there was nothing inconsistent.  Fosler remand (GP to indecent exposure and bigamy).

United States v.  Pierce, Army.  Certified case.  Ryan for a unanimous  court.  Computer crime case.  The issue being who decides if the internet is a “facility or means of interstate . . . commerce,” and the correctness of the instructions.  The military judge decides.

CAAF granted review of two issues today in an Army case.  One was the latest Fosler tailer in the trailer park.  Here’s the other:

WHETHER APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY TO FAILURE TO OBEY A GENERAL REGULATION (CHARGE I) WAS IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE FAILED TO SECURE A DISCLAIMER OF THE MISTAKE OF FACT DEFENSE WHEN IT WAS RAISED DURING THE PROVIDENCE INQUIRY.

United States v. Goodman, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0389/AR (C.A.A.F. May 11, 2011).

ACCA’s opinion was a two-sentence summary affirmance.  United States v. Goodman, No. ARMY 20090083 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 21, 2011).

CAAF also granted review of another Fosler trailer issue in a second Army case today.  United States v. Smith, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0420/AR (C.A.A.F. May 11, 2011).