Legal Opinion
United States v. Negron
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Decided July 29, 2004No. 03-0651/MCPublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Judge GIERKE
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Our review of this ease relates only to Appellant’s guilty plea to depositing obscene matter in the mail. In the providency inquiry, the military judge erroneously gave the definition of “obscene” relating to indecent acts to define the “obscene” language that renders this offense punishable. The principal issue before this Court is whether the military judge’s use of this erroneous definition of “obscene” and his questioning of the Appellant using primarily leading questions about this offense were deficient, thereby rendering Appellant’s plea…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- United States v. CareUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969
- United States v. PraterUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1991
- United States v. JordanCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2002
- United States v. O'ConnorCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2003
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- United States v. RileyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2013
- United States v. GreenCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2010
- United States v. MurphyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2015
- United States v. FinchCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2014
- United States v. AtchakCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2016
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.