
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Send us Fan Mail
In this week's episode we discuss United States v. Grijalva. In this case the government had an Article 117a (wrongful distribution of intimate visual images) offense but didn't think it could prove a direct and palpable connection to a military mission or the military environment (element 4). So it dropped that element and re-packaged it as an offense under the general article, Article 134. The CAAF applies the preemption doctrine but also takes a stroll through the First Amendment -- and both have consequences for defense counsel.
By Sam Castanien & Trevor Ward5
1919 ratings
Send us Fan Mail
In this week's episode we discuss United States v. Grijalva. In this case the government had an Article 117a (wrongful distribution of intimate visual images) offense but didn't think it could prove a direct and palpable connection to a military mission or the military environment (element 4). So it dropped that element and re-packaged it as an offense under the general article, Article 134. The CAAF applies the preemption doctrine but also takes a stroll through the First Amendment -- and both have consequences for defense counsel.

113,121 Listeners

56,944 Listeners

14,337 Listeners

15,506 Listeners

29,272 Listeners

16,525 Listeners