Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share NMCCA: United States v. Nichol, No. 201800286
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
NMCCA: United States v. Nichol, No. 201800286
Argued on October 3, 2019.
Case Summary: A general court-martial consisting of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of forcible rape, in violation of Article 120(a)(1), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920 (2012)), two specifications of sexual assault, in violation of Article 120(b)(1)(B), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920), and one specification of rape, in violation of Article 120(a)(5), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920). The members sentenced Appellant to 25 years’ confinement, reduction to paygrade E-1, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged
Issues:
[I]. Did the military judge err in admitting over Defense objection AOAN D.B.’s out-of-court statement pursuant to Military Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B)(i) and (ii)?
[II]. Did the Appellant waive objection on appeal to the military judge’s admission of Ms. D.R.’s out-of-court statement?
Note: Audio remixed from stereo to mono and post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.
View all episodes
By CAAFlogArgued on October 3, 2019.
Case Summary: A general court-martial consisting of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of forcible rape, in violation of Article 120(a)(1), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920 (2012)), two specifications of sexual assault, in violation of Article 120(b)(1)(B), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920), and one specification of rape, in violation of Article 120(a)(5), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920). The members sentenced Appellant to 25 years’ confinement, reduction to paygrade E-1, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged
Issues:
[I]. Did the military judge err in admitting over Defense objection AOAN D.B.’s out-of-court statement pursuant to Military Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B)(i) and (ii)?
[II]. Did the Appellant waive objection on appeal to the military judge’s admission of Ms. D.R.’s out-of-court statement?
Note: Audio remixed from stereo to mono and post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.