- whereas multiplicity addresses double jeopardy principles, unreasonable multiplication is aimed at preventing prosecutorial overreaching
CAAF Opinion Digest · V.D.1 · Multiplicity and Lesser Included Offenses
Generally
4 digested opinions, 2008–2013 Terms
2013 (September Term)
2009 (September Term)
- an unconditional guilty plea waives multiplicity claims when the offenses are not facially duplicative
- appellant’s unconditional guilty pleas waived the issue of whether the specifications charging appellant with receipt and possession of the same child pornography were multiplicious, where the specifications were not facially duplicative because appellant received the files of the images on one medium and stored them on another
- if a court, contrary to the intent of Congress, imposes multiple convictions and punishments under different statutes for the same act or course of conduct, the court violates the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution
2008 (September Term)
- the prohibition against multiplicity is grounded in compliance with the constitutional and statutory restrictions against double jeopardy
- although the President has prohibited the waiver of certain fundamental rights in a pretrial agreement, neither multiplicity nor the unreasonable multiplication of charges is among them
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 · digest page VD1 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).