2023 (October Term)
United States v. Stradtmann, 84 M.J. 378 (the President has broad power under Article 36(a), UCMJ, to issue pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures in the MCM; despite the breadth of this authority, an appellate court is not bound by the President's interpretation of the elements of substantive offenses; even so, the court must recognize the President's unique role regarding Article 134 when he provides enumerated elements to limit the scope of the General Article, and absent a contrary intention in the Constitution or a statute, the court should adhere to the Manual's elements of proof).
(while appellate courts are not bound by the President's interpretation of the elements of substantive offenses, both his interpretation and listing of offenses under Article 134, UCMJ, is persuasive authority to the courts).
(when the President's narrowing construction of a statute does not contradict the express language of a statute, it is entitled to some deference, and an appellate court will not normally disturb that construction).
United States v. Rocha, 84 M.J. 346 (in the MCM, the President's enumerations and explanations of the offenses are not binding; they are generally treated as persuasive authority).
2021 (October Term)
United States v. Badders, 82 M.J. 299 (the RCM Discussion is not binding and only serves as guidance).
United States v. Guyton, 82 M.J. 146 (the provisions of a discussion section to the RCM are not binding but instead serve as guidance).
2020 (October Term)
United States v. Chandler, 80 M.J. 425 (the provisions of a discussion section to the RCM are not binding but instead serve as guidance).
2016 (October Term)
United States v. Herrmann, 76 M.J. 304 (although MCM explanations of offenses are not binding on the CAAF, they are generally treated as persuasive authority to be evaluated in light of the CAAF’s precedent).
United States v. Reese, 76 M.J. 297 (although MCM explanations of codal offenses are not binding, they are persuasive indications of how the President, as head of the Executive Branch of Government, perceives an offense, including limitations on the Executive power that are not required by the Code or other applicable law).
2011 (September Term)
United States v. Ali, 71 M.J. 256 (MCM explanations of offenses are not binding on appellate courts, but are generally treated as persuasive authority).
2010 (September Term)United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (although Congress delegated to the President certain rulemaking authority under Article 36, UCMJ, not everything in the MCM represents an exercise of that authority, and the President does not have the authority to decide questions of substantive criminal law).
(some of the MCM is merely explanatory or hortatory; the sample specifications and drafters’ analysis are included among these categories and do not purport to be binding).
(the discussion in the MCM stating that the allegation of the terminal element of Article 134 in a specification is not required is not intended to be binding; the government must allege every element expressly or by necessary implication, including the terminal element).
2009 (September Term)
United
States v. Contreras, 69 M.J. 120 (the President’s
analysis of the
punitive articles is persuasive, but not binding, authority; moreover,
where
the President’s narrowing construction is favorable to an accused and
is not
inconsistent with the language of a statute, an appellate court will
not
disturb the President’s narrowing construction, which is an appropriate
Executive branch limitation on the conduct subject to prosecution).
(the President’s analysis of
the
punitive articles is persuasive authority and may potentially further
limit the
application of some punitive articles to military members only, just as
he
limited the application of the housebreaking statute to cases where the
underlying offense was something other than a purely military offense).
United
States v. Paige, 67 M.J. 442 (although the
discussion section of the MCM is
non-binding, this statement reflects applicable judicial precedent).
United
States v. Miller, 67 M.J. 385 (although
United
States v. Ranney, 67 M.J. 297 (although MCM
explanations of offenses are not
binding on the CAAF, they are generally treated as persuasive
authority, to be
evaluated in light of the CAAF’s precedent).
United
States v. Stephens, 67 M.J. 233 (a rule or other
provision of the MCM cannot
sanction a violation of an appellant’s constitutional rights).
United
States v. Miller, 67 M.J. 87 (although MCM
explanations of offenses are not
binding on the CAAF, they are generally treated as persuasive
authority, to be
evaluated in light of the CAAF’s precedent).
United
States v. Mitchell, 66 M.J. 176 (the
interpretation of substantive offenses in
Part IV of the
(to the extent that there is
tension between
the interpretative guidance in the
United States v. Moran, 65 M.J. 178 (although not
binding, the Discussion to the Rules for Courts-Martial reflects
applicable judicial precedent).
United
States v. Stevenson, 53 MJ 257 (in view of the
receipt of
military pay and the potential for further active duty service by
members who
are temporarily removed from active duty by reason of disability
[Temporary
Disability Retired List], MRE 312(f) does apply and evidence obtained
in
compliance with that rule may be used in a court-martial of a person on
the
Temporary Disability Retired List).