Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Humphries

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided June 15, 2012No. 10-5004/AFPublished

1DissentStucky, Judge

Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Senior Airman Humphries, failed to demonstrate that the failure of the adultery specification to allege the terminal element was plain error. I would further hold that the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) was without authority to remand the case to the convening authority with directions to approve a sentence not to exceed what the CCA thought appropriate. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

I. The Specification

The specification in question (Charge II, Specification 1) alleged the following under Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. United States v. BagleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. United States v. FradySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  5. United States v. YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

20 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