tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post7291278118928852244..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: Jackson v. Virginia -- not as worthless as I thoughtDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-86362993560532045682007-07-13T09:44:00.000-04:002007-07-13T09:44:00.000-04:00Roderick is a significant case for practitioners f...Roderick is a significant case for practitioners for several reasons. First, with respect to the legal sufficiency issue, for the first time CAAF adopted the six-prong test used by most federal courts in determining what depictions constitute a “lascivious exhibition” of the genitals. Of no less importance was it’s holding that the military judge erred by concluding that dismissal was not a remedy for unreasonably multiplied charges – an issue that vexed the field for some time. Additionally, it reaffirmed the pleading-elements approach to multiplicity; essentially a modified Blockburger test. <BR/><BR/>The answer to your question - whether there is “more than one possible answer” to the granted issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction for taking indecent liberties as well as creating sexually explicit depictions of his daughters – is, of course, YES. After viewing the photographs of Appellant’s daughters, CAAF determined that “the evidence was legally sufficient to support the charge of using one of his daughters to create sexually explicit images BUT NOT THE OTHER.” Roderick at 427. It later explained, “the military judge’s finding on Specification 1 was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Accordingly, we are compelled to SET ASIDE the military judge’s findings with regard to Specification 1 and dismiss the specification.” Roderick at 430. <BR/><BR/>Next time, try reading past the issue statement and the truth shall set you free.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com