United States v. Wilcox
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
66 M.J. 442 (2008)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Army Private First Class Jeremy Wilcox (defendant) had a general AOL profile and an AOL profile for seeking relationships. In both profiles, Wilcox identified himself as a United States Army paratrooper and posted white-supremacist statements. An Army investigator emailed Wilcox, pretending to be interested in his profile. In private emails to the investigator, Wilcox expressed racist and anarchist views but never encouraged the investigator to take any action against the government or a specific person. Wilcox was charged with violating Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for engaging in conduct that was (1) service discrediting and (2) prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces. At trial, the prosecution (plaintiff) did not present evidence showing that Wilcox’s racist or anarchist statements discredited the armed services or prejudiced the good order and discipline of the armed services. In contrast, Wilcox presented evidence that he worked well with the minority servicemembers in his unit and that his personal views had not impacted his or his unit’s military performance. Wilcox was convicted. On appeal, Wilcox argued that the speech in his AOL profiles was legally insufficient to violate Article 134.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ryan, J.)
Dissent (Baker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 798,000 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.