"No. 21-0042/AR. U.S. v. Danny L. McPherson. CCA 20180214. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue:
DID THE UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR WHEN IT DISMISSED THE SPECIFICATIONS IN CHARGE I ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED?" Read the ACCA opinion here.
1 Comment
CW
11/18/2020 02:47:57 am
I made the same argument in 2018, as defense counsel at a rehearing (on a Hills issue) of a case originally tried in 2014 with several 134 specifications of alleged misconduct at various times prior to 2007. I charted every amendment of Article 43 and noted that the 2016 amendments removed 134 indecent acts offenses from the list of child abuse offenses qualifying for the extended period of limitations under subsection (b)(2)(B), reverting this offense to the default 5-year limitations period as of 23 December 2016. I also noted that the "clarification" in 2017 was an attempt to retroactively change the statute of limitations in violation of the Ex Post Facto clause. The military judge ruled against me, but I'm tempted to think my arguments were adopted by successors and may yet lead to a showdown at CAAF pitting textualist against "purposivist" canons of statutory interpretation.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Links
CAAF -Daily Journal -Current Term Opinions ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA Joint R. App. Pro. Global MJ Reform LOC Mil. Law Army Lawyer Resources Categories
All
Archives
April 2022
|