Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Piolunek

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided March 26, 2015No. 14-0283/AF and 14-5006/AFPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partErdmann, Judge

As I cannot agree with the majority’s interpretation of Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 51 S.Ct. 532, 75 L.Ed. 1117 (1931), and the impact of that decision on United States v. Barberi, 71 M.J. 127 (C.A.A.F.2012), I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion. However, as I agree that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals should be affirmed, I concur in the result.

Background

Among other specifications, Piolunek was charged with receipt and possession of visual depictions of a sexually explicit nature of a minor under Article 134(2),…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Zant v. StephensSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Stromberg v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  4. Thomas v. CollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  5. Griffin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1991

4 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