.jpg)
WHETHER THE PHRASE "WITH INTENT UNLAWFULLY TO OBTAIN AN ADVANTAGE, TO WIT: SEXUAL RELATIONS," IN THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE II STATES THE OFFENSE OF EXTORTION IN LIGHT OF THE PROVISION IN THE MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL THAT PROVIDES THAT "AN INTENT TO MAKE A PERSON DO AN ACT AGAINST THAT PERSON'S WILL IS NOT, BY ITSELF, SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE EXTORTION." SEE MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES PT. IV, PARA. 53.c.(94) (2005 ED.).United States v. Brown, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-0261/AR (C.A.A.F. Sept. 8, 2008). ACCA's unpublished opinion in the case is available here.
Today, CAAF granted review of this issue: "WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS HIS HAIR TEST RESULTS." United States v. Rogers, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-0518/AF (C.A.A.F. Sept. 10, 2008). AFCCA's unpublished decision in the case is available here. The Air Force Court had split 2-1 in the case, with Judge Heimann favoring reversal.
Posts
2 comments:
Regarding the Brown case, given that he is also convicted of rape, indecent acts, assault, larceny, adultery, willful disobedience of a superior officer, communicating a threat, and (of course) false official statement, the novel extortion charge just seems kinda like piling on. Since the case is already going back to the CA for errors regarding a fine and contingent confinement, one wonders whether the extortion charge is even worth fighting for. Maybe an Army reader could chime in since the ACCA opinion is only 4 pages, and doesn't say much beyond the error on the fine.
I was heartened to see that the SJA was proactive and recommended reducing the nearly 20-year sentence by six months to compensate for delay in post-trial processing.
Why was this issue specified? Was the point raised by the defense in any way?
Post a Comment