CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic

U.S. v. Moorefield, 66 M.J. 170

Decided Apr 1, 2008 · No. 07-0503/MC · 2008 Term · Opinion (PDF)

Digested under 3 topics

Military Justice Personnel: Staff Judge Advocate: Post-TrialRecommendation

  1. the fact that the SJA served as the military judge in an earlier, unrelated court-martial of appellant did not disqualify him from participating in a second court-martial of appellant under RCM 1106(b) and Article 6, UCMJ, which bar a person from participating as the SJA in the same case that he served as a military judge, where the courts-martial occurred several years apart and involved different victims and evidence, and thus the two trials were not the same case

Military Justice Personnel: Staff Judge Advocate: Qualifications / Disqualifications

  1. RCM 1106(b) and Article 6, UCMJ, bar a person from participating as the SJA in the same case that he served as a military judge
  2. the fact that the SJA served as the military judge in an earlier, unrelated court-martial of appellant did not disqualify him from participating in a second court-martial of appellant under RCM 1106(b) and Article 6, UCMJ, which bar a person from participating as the SJA in the same case that he served as a military judge, where the courts-martial occurred several years apart and involved different victims and evidence, and thus the two trials were not the same case

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Post-trial Recommendation

  1. RCM 1106(b) and Article 6, UCMJ, bar a person from participating as the SJA in the same case that he served as a military judge
  2. the fact that the SJA served as the military judge in an earlier, unrelated court-martial of appellant did not disqualify him from participating in a second court-martial of appellant under RCM 1106(b) and Article 6, UCMJ, which bar a person from participating as the SJA in the same case that he served as a military judge, where the courts-martial occurred several years apart and involved different victims and evidence, and thus the two trials were not the same case
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).