United States v. Murphy
71 M.J. 106, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 74
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces
DecidedJanuary 23, 2012
DocketNo. 09-0079/AR
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases
This text of 71 M.J. 106 (United States v. Murphy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
United States v. Murphy, 71 M.J. 106, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 74 (Ark. 2012).
Opinion
CCA 19872873. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE II AND THE SPECIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL CHARGE II FAIL TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES AND THIS COURT’S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2001).
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler. United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F. 2011).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
United States v. Murphy
71 M.J. 347 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2012)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
71 M.J. 106, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-murphy-armfor-2012.