United States v. Washington
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
57 M.J. 394 (2002)
Facts
Under a program created by the United States Department of Defense to protect against possible biological weapons, Airman Basic Christopher Washington (defendant) was required to get a series of six anthrax vaccinations. Washington received five vaccinations. However, after hearing reports questioning the vaccine’s safety, Washington did not get his sixth vaccination. Washington’s commander ordered Washington to get the sixth vaccination. Washington refused and received nonjudicial punishment that impacted his pay. Washington’s commander then issued another order for Washington to get his sixth vaccination. Washington told his commander that he would not obey the order. Washington was charged with willful disobedience of a lawful order, and a special court-martial was convened. At the court-martial, Washington stipulated that the order was lawful. Washington argued that his disobedience was justified under either the defense of necessity or the defense of duress because he was trying to avoid bodily injury. The military judge found that neither defense applied and did not allow Washington to present evidence of either defense during the trial. Washington was convicted and sentenced to confinement for two months and a bad-conduct discharge. Washington appealed, arguing that he should have been allowed to present the defenses of necessity and duress.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Effron, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,300 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
