Source: http://www.caaflog.com/2018/01/23/argument-preview-whether-article-120b-preempts-attempted-enticement-of-a-minor-under-18-u-s-c-%C2%A7-2422b-in-united-states-v-wheeler/
Timestamp: 2019-05-21 19:36:51
Document Index: 607315149

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2422', '§ 920', '§ 2422', '§920', '§920', '§2422', '§920', '§ 920']

CAAFlog » Argument Preview: Whether Article 120b preempts attempted enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), in United States v. Wheeler
Wheeler’s argument is straightforward:
With the revision of Article 120 [in 2012], sexual offenses against children, including those through the Internet and cell phones, are appropriately prosecuted under Article 120b. Charge II was preempted by Article 120b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920b, and the finding of guilt should be set aside by this Court.
The Air Force Government Appellate Division’s response relies heavily on the fact that CAAF did not apply preemption to prosecutions under § 2422(b) prior to the 2012 enactment of Article 120b, and on the assertion that:
Because Congress intended §920b to “consolidate” parts of already-existing law, and Congress did not specifically state that §920b replaced charging §2422 through Article 134, Congress did not intend §920b to occupy the field of enticement.
Gov’t Div. Br. at 14. Wheeler’s reply brief disputes this assertion:
The government’s position that § 920b is intended to “consolidate parts of already-existing law” is contradicted by the plain language of the statute. Although consolidation of the law was part of the revision, another aim was to expand definitions to include a broader array of offenses, as described in the Analysis of Article 120b quoted above. A plain language review of this spectrum of offenses shows that it includes online enticement. Using indecent language with a child is prohibited by Article 120b, any indecent exposure is prohibited by Article 120b, sexual contact and sexual acts are prohibited by Article 120b, and attempts to commit any of these offenses can be charged under Article 80.
The wildcard for today’s oral argument is whether CAAF will focus more on the statute or on the facts. If Article 120b occupies the field of enticement of minors, then preemption will almost certainly apply. Alternatively, if the particular facts of Wheeler’s offense fit squarely within Article 120b, preemption will also almost certainly apply.
The current version of Article 120 is not as troublesome as the former version (discussed in this post).
• AFCCA decision (76 M.J. 564)
caaflog.com/?p=38390