Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Private First Class MAURICE MCCORMICK, JR.

Army Court of Criminal Appeals

Decided December 19, 2014No. ARMY 20120029Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHaight, Judge

I concur with the majority’s resolution of the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. I also agree with the majority that there is a legally viable exception to the general legal principle that a principal cannot be an accessory after the fact to his own offense. However, I disagree with the majority, that we should apply that particular exception to the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, I would dismiss the accessory after the fact offense as an unreasonable multiplication of charges or as factually insufficient.

Appellant aided and abetted his co-actor in the shooting of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. QuirozCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2001
  2. United States v. WeymouthCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1995
  3. United States v. GrijalvaCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2001
  4. United States v. NealyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2012
  5. United States v. DacusCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2008

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API