UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Daqric B. MOOREFIELD, Sergeant 

U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant 

No. 07-0503 

Crim. App. No. 200600162 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Argued March 10, 2008 

Decided April 1, 2008 

PER CURIAM 

Counsel

For Appellant: Lieutenant Gregory W. Manz, JAGC, USN (argued); 

Lieutenant Darrin W. S. MacKinnon, JAGC, USNR (on brief). 

For Appellee: Colonel Louis J. Puleo, USMC (argued); Commander 

Paul C. LeBlanc, JAGC, USN, and Major Tai D. Le, USMC (on 

brief); Major Kevin C. Harris, USMC. 

Military Judge: M. B. Richardson 

THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION. 
United States v. Moorefield, No. 07-0503/MC 

2

PER CURIAM: 

A general court-martial composed of officers and enlisted 

members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one 

specification of making a false official statement in violation 

of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 

U.S.C. § 907 (2000);1

 one specification of insubordination toward 

a noncommissioned officer, in violation of Article 91, UCMJ, 10 

U.S.C. § 891 (2000); one specification of attempting to strike a 

military policeman in violation of Article 128, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 

§ 928 (2000); five specifications of assault in violation of 

Article 128, UCMJ; and one specification each of disorderly 

conduct, soliciting crime, communicating a threat, and 

impersonating a noncommissioned officer, in violation of Article 

134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2000). The members sentenced 

Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for two years, 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the 

lowest enlisted grade. The convening authority approved the 

sentence and credited Appellant with 324 days for pre-trial 

confinement. The United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of 

Criminal Appeals (CCA) affirmed. United States v. Moorefield, 

No. NMCCA 200600162 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 19, 2006) (per 

curiam) (unpublished). 

 

1

 It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to 

reflect that Appellant pled not guilty to Charge I, 

Specification 1 (as reflected in the Record of Trial at 59). 
United States v. Moorefield, No. 07-0503/MC 

3

DISCUSSION

The staff judge advocate (SJA) in this case, Colonel (Col.) 

K, served as the military judge in an earlier, unrelated courtmartial of Appellant. Appellant argued that Col. K should have 

been disqualified because his participation in the second courtmartial violated Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1106, Article 

6, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 806 (2000), and 28 U.S.C. § 455 (2000), and 

required recusal. 

The CCA rejected this argument. It recognized that R.C.M. 

1106(b) and Article 6, UCMJ, bar a person from participating as 

the SJA in the same case that he served as a military judge, but 

held that because Appellant had not shown that the two trials in 

which Col. K was involved were the same case, R.C.M. 1106(b) and 

Article 6, UCMJ, did not apply. Moorefield, No. NMCCA 

200600162, slip. op. at 3. We agree. 

Appellant’s courts-martial occurred several years apart and 

involved different victims and evidence. And Appellant points 

to no specialized knowledge obtained by Col. K in the course of 

the first court-martial, or knowledge of disputed evidentiary 

facts in the second court-martial on the part of Col. K.2

 

Moreover, Appellant has not shown that anything Col. K, as SJA, 

 

2 Thus, even assuming without deciding that 28 U.S.C. § 455 

(2000), which pertains to the disqualification of federal 

justices, judges, and magistrates as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451 

(2000), extends to an SJA, it did not require Col. K to 

disqualify himself. 
United States v. Moorefield, No. 07-0503/MC 

4

did or did not do in the course of the second court-martial 

prejudiced him. Under the facts of this case, Col. K acted as 

SJA and military judge in cases involving Appellant that were 

neither the same case for purposes of R.C.M. 1106 or Article 6, 

UCMJ, nor the same matter, for purposes of Dep’t of the Navy, 

Judge Advocate General Instr. 5803.1B, Professional Conduct of 

Attorneys Practicing Under the Supervision of the Judge Advocate 

General, Rule 1.12 (Feb. 11, 2000). 

 The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court 

of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.