Skip to main content

United States v. McDaniel

Citations

  • 39 M.J. 173
  • 1994 CMA LEXIS 16
  • 1994 WL 168449

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting the appellant’s actual presence or participation with the victim is a distinction between the offense of indecent acts with another and voyeurism
  • finding sufficient interaction when the appellant gave the women he was secretly filming instructions from a separate room to enhance the view from his hidden video camera
  • recruiter’s interaction with female recruits, even without physical touching, by “instructing them to disrobe, to change positions, and to bounce up and down” held sufficient to constitute committing indecent acts as opposed to “mere voyeurism”
  • surreptitious videotaping of nude recruits is a disorder under Article 134 and, for punishment purposes, is closely related to “indecent acts with another” where accused instructed recruits to disrobe, change positions, and bounce up and down

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cox, Crawford, Gierke, Sullivan, Wiss

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.