CAAFlog
  • Home

CAAFlog

Seeking info

3/1/2022

4 Comments

 
"No. 22-0091/AF. U.S. v. Javon C. Richard. CCA 39918. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:
 
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE OF PREJUDICE TO GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE FOR THE ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, OFFENSES WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT."

Comment: This is intriguing. Does anyone know what the conduct was?

AFCCA decision.
​Appellant contends the Government failed to prove that the charged possession, distribution, and production of child pornography were prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces. He notes that conduct punishable as prejudicial to good order and discipline under Article 134, UCMJ, “is confined to cases in which the prejudice is reasonably direct and palpable.” MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 60.c.(2)(a); see also United States v. Cendejas, 62 M.J. 334, 340 (C.A.A.F. 2006). Appellant suggests his conduct had little or no “nexus with the military . . . at all” because those involved, other than him, were civilians. 
4 Comments
former TC
3/1/2022 06:40:23 pm

Production, possession, and distribution of CP.

https://afcca.law.af.mil/afcca_opinions/cp/richard_-_39918_u_471584.pdf

Reply
Brenner Fissell
3/1/2022 08:53:52 pm

Seems like it may have been granted to resolve the issue on p. 8.

Reply
Tami a/k/a Princess Leia
3/1/2022 09:13:20 pm

20-year-old servicemember has sexual relationship with 16-year-old German national. Why wasn't it charged as service-discrediting?

Reply
Philip D. Cave link
3/2/2022 09:41:20 am

Agreed.

It seems to me that 134(2) is the real charge.

134(1) is for those offenses where the conduct impacts another servicemember or the unit or the mission. This is because of the actual or potential impact on good order and discipline. Whereas 134(2) is all about the military's reputation in the community is it not.

Under current law, CAAF cannot confirm a conviction under134(1), can they?

If CAAF sets aside, the Army can prosecute for the 134(1), can't they? (I am assuming there was no charging in the alternative.)

If there is a retrial, can a claim of double jeopardy work?

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    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
    Daily Journal
    MJ Reform
    Question Time
    Scholarship
    Top Of The Year 2021
    Unanimous
    Week In Review

    Archives

    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020

The views expressed on this website are expressed in the authors' personal capacities.
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home