United States v. Seider

I respectfully dissent from the lead opinion on several grounds. First, the majority unnecessarily creates a sweeping rule on what should be an extremely fact-specific issue. To this end, the lead opinion fails to recognize the features of this case which distinguish it from Walters, and therefore render the Walters holding inapplicable. United States v. Walters, 58 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F.2003). Finally, the majority neglects to apply waiver in this case.

On the first point, the allegation of committing an offense on “divers occasions” exists not only under the facts of this case and Walters, but…