United States v. Nerad
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
69 M.J. 138 (2010)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Senior Airman Michael Nerad (defendant) was married but had a consensual affair with a 17-year-old female. The female sent Nerad nude photos of herself, and the couple took photos of their joint sexual activity. Nerad was court-martialed on several charges, including a charge for possessing child pornography that was based on the sexually explicit photos of the female minor. Nerad pleaded guilty to all the charges and was sentenced. The convening authority approved the findings of guilt and the sentence. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) reviewed the case and concluded that no legal or factual errors had occurred. However, the CCA found that (1) the photos in question did not warrant criminal prosecution and (2) the child-pornography finding unreasonably exaggerated the criminality of Nerad’s conduct because it required Nerad to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. The CCA disapproved and set aside the child-pornography finding but affirmed Nerad’s sentence without any changes. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reviewed the case to determine whether the CCA had the authority to disapprove a legally and factually sufficient finding of guilt.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ryan, J.)
Concurrence (Baker, J.)
Dissent (Stucky, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.