Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

United States v. Thomas

United States Court of Military Appeals
13 U.S.C.M.A. 278 (1962)


Facts

Thomas, McClellan (defendants), and another, enlistees in the military, met a female during a “bar hopping” spree and drove her around in McClellan’s vehicle from bar to bar drinking. Later that evening, the female collapsed and the three men decided to take her home. Shortly thereafter, each of the three men did, or attempted to, have sexual intercourse with the female while they believed her to be unconscious in the back seat of the car. However, when the female failed to regain consciousness, they became frightened and drove to a nearby gas station seeking help. A police officer was summoned and, upon his arrival, examined the female only to learn that she was dead. Later, an autopsy confirmed that the female had died earlier in the evening of “acute interstitial myocarditis,” a weakening of the heart muscles. Defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit rape, rape, and lewd and lascivious conduct. At their general court-martial, the third man testified against Thomas and McClellan in exchange for a more lenient sentence. Defendants argued that it was legally impossible to attempt to rape a woman who was deceased. Defendants were acquitted of rape but found guilty of attempted rape and the other charges. Each man was dishonorably discharged and sentenced to three years imprisonment. A military board of review set aside the convictions of attempted rape and conspiracy and modified the lewd and lascivious convictions. The matter was reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Kilday, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.