Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 6/27/2005

United States v. Augspurger

Citations

61 M.J. 189
2005 CAAF LEXIS 659
2005 WL 1503725

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that the Court of Criminal Appeals could not independently conclude which occasion was the basis for the conviction and then perform a factual sufficiency review of that conclusion
holding that the Court of Criminal Appeals could not independently conclude which occasion was the basis for the conviction and then perform a factual sufficiency review of that conclusion
holding that when the phrase \on divers occasions\ is removed from a specification, the effect is \that the accused has been found guilty of misconduct on a single occasion and not guilty of the remaining occasions.\
stating that the lower court “did not have the authority to review and affirm [the appellant’s] conviction by selecting the occasion that formed the basis for the conviction and then reviewing that conclusion for factual sufficiency”
stating that the lower court “did not have the authority to review and affirm [the appellant’s] conviction by selecting the occasion that formed the basis for the conviction and then reviewing that conclusion for factual sufficiency”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Erdmann, Gierke, Ef-Fron, Baker, Crawford

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named United States v. Augspurger

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.