CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic
U.S. v. Fisher, 58 M.J. 300
Decided Jun 17, 2003 · No. 03-0059/AR · 2003 Term · Opinion (PDF)
Digested under 4 topics
Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 134 -- False Swearing Pre-2019 offenses
- it is not necessary that a statement be false in every detail in order for a guilty plea to false swearing to be provident; the gist of the crime of false swearing is that an oath to tell the truth has been knowingly violated; a statement need not be false in its entirety
- the difficulty with the plea inquiry into this false swearing specification was the military judge’s reference to false statements by omission; here, despite the reference to false by omission, there were also multiple literal falsehoods; it is clear from the entire record that the appellant knew that he was accused of making a false statement, referenced the falsity of the statement in his stipulation of fact and in response to the military judge’s questions, and voluntarily pleaded guilty because he was guilty
Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Stipulations
- unless withdrawn or stricken, an admission in a stipulation of fact is binding on the court-martial and may not be contradicted by the parties
Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas
- under Article 45, UCMJ, if an accused appears to enter a plea improvidently or through lack of understanding of its meaning or effect, the plea shall not be accepted by the court
- it is not necessary that a statement be false in every detail in order for a guilty plea to false swearing to be provident
- failure to explain each and every element of the charged offense to the accused in a clear and precise manner prior to accepting the plea is not reversible error if it is clear from the entire record that the accused knew the elements, admitted them freely, and pleaded guilty because he was guilty
- the difficulty with the plea inquiry into this false swearing specification was the military judge’s reference to false statements by omission; here, despite the reference to false by omission, there were also multiple literal falsehoods; it is clear from the entire record that the appellant knew that he was accused of making a false statement, referenced the falsity of the statement in his stipulation of fact and in response to the military judge’s questions, and voluntarily pleaded guilty because he was guilty
Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.
- rejection of a guilty plea on appellate review requires that the record of trial show a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the guilty plea
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).