Resch judicata

In United States v. Resch, __ M.J. ___, No. 06-0863/AR (C.A.A.F. June 22, 2007), CAAF considers whether the military judge improperly considered the providence inquiry and a stipulation supporting Resch's guilty plea to UA in resolving the contested offense of desertion. In a highly fact-driven opinion, Judge Baker and three of his colleagues say yes. Judge Stucky says no, relying on both indications that the accused had authorized such use and the defense's invitation to the military judge to use them on the contested offense, thus implicating the invited error doctrine.

Most interesting to me is that the majority actually relies on Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), to hold that the evidence was legally insufficient to support an extended termination date for the UA. As soon as I have the chance, I will do a multi-year review of CAAF's handling of legal insufficiency issues.