|
United States of America v. Technical Sergeant Eric P. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004) is a United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) decision which, among other issues, upheld Article 125 (Sodomy) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice against a facial substantive due process challenge, and ruled that the Supreme Court's decision in ''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) applied in analyzing as-applied challenges. The decision is thus binding precedent on all courts-martial in determining if an Article 125 prosecution is constitutional. == Case History== The appellant, United States Air Force Technical Sergeant Eric P. Marcum, a cryptologic linguist assigned to Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska, was tried by court-martial for "dereliction of duty by providing alcohol to individuals under the age of 21, non-forcible sodomy, forcible sodomy, assault consummated by a battery, indecent assault, and three specifications of committing indecent acts". On May 21, 2000, Marcum was convicted of several charges, including non-forcible sodomy in violation of Article 125. He was "sentenced to confinement for 10 years, a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The convening authority reduced the confinement to six years, but otherwise approved the findings and sentence". The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence. 〔 United States v. Marcum, No. ACM 34216, slip op. (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. July 25, 2002) 〕 After that, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in ''Lawrence''. 〔 (''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003) ) Via Cornell University Law School Accessed July 12, 2011 〕 The CAAF the reviewed the following issues. ISSUE I WHETHER APPELLANT SUFFERED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN HIS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL REVEALED PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS WITHOUT APPELLANT’S PERMISSION DURING THE SENTENCING PHASE OF APPELLANT’S TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF M.R.E. 502 AND 511. ISSUE II WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY INSTRUCTING THE PANEL THAT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE IN APPELLANT’S CASE WAS LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAD NOT AUTHORIZED THAT PUNISHMENT FOR APPELLANT’S OFFENSES. ISSUE III WHETHER APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING ARTICLE 125, UCMJ, BY ENGAGING IN CONSENSUAL SODOMY (CHARGE II, SPECIFICATION 1) MUST BE SET ASIDE IN LIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING IN LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 123 S.CT. 2472 (2003). 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United States v. Marcum」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|