U.S. v. Jeffers, 57 M.J. 13

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Generally

1. in considering challenges to the breadth of an order, Court will examine the specific conduct at issue rather than the theoretical limits of the order
2. an order to have no social contact with a given individual was definite, specific, and importantly, uncontested by defense counsel at trial; there was absolutely no restriction on appellant’s ability to communicate with that individual, the company clerk, on official business

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Right to Present a Defense

1. order to have no social contact with a named person did not inhibit appellant’s ability to prepare his defense; nothing in the order could have been interpreted as restricting appellant’s access to that person, a potential witness against him, so long as the meeting with that individual was official business, and there were no facts developed at trial, either through motions, objections or testimony, that showed the order interfered with an attorney-client relationship, or impaired defense counsel’s trial preparation

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 92 - Failure to Obey Order or Regulation Pre-2019 offenses

1. in considering challenges to the breadth of an order, Court will examine the specific conduct at issue rather than the theoretical limits of the order
2. an order to have no social contact with a given individual was definite, specific, and importantly, uncontested by defense counsel at trial; there was absolutely no restriction on appellant’s ability to communicate with that individual, the company clerk, on official business
3. order to have no social contact with a named person did not inhibit appellant’s ability to prepare his defense; nothing in the order could have been interpreted as restricting appellant’s access to that person, a potential witness against him, so long as the meeting with that individual was official business, and there were no facts developed at trial, either through motions, objections or testimony, that showed the order interfered with an attorney-client relationship, or impaired defense counsel’s trial preparation
4. evidence that appellant violated an order to have no social contact with a given person was legally sufficient; the length of time that person remained in appellant’s room, coupled with the fact that the contact between appellant and the named person ended only after a noncommissioned officer discovered that person in appellant’s room and removed her, are consistent with the specification’s allegation that appellant’s contact with the individual was social, in violation of the commander’s order
5. questions of the applicability of a rule of law to an undisputed set of facts are normally questions of law; the legality of an act is normally a question of law – "lawfulness" is a question of law

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. the test for legal sufficiency is whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt