Military Court-Martial Lawyers
  • Court-Martial Lawyers
    • Military Sexual Assault Lawyer - Article 120, UCMJ
    • Military Failed Drug Test
    • Article 80 Attempts
    • Article 81 Conspiracy
    • Article 118 Murder
    • Article 128 Assault - Military Assault Charges >
      • Maltreatment
      • Theft and Larceny Cases >
        • Article 132 Frauds Against the United States
      • Parental Discipline Cases
    • AWOL and Desertion >
      • Article 85 Desertion
    • Article 133 Conduct Unbecoming
    • Disrespect Offenses >
      • Article 92, UCMJ Failure to Obey an Order
    • Article 107 False Official Statements >
      • Obstruction of Justice
    • Pornography Cases
  • Court-Martial Appeals
    • Petitions for a New Trial
    • Legal and Factual Insufficiency of the Evidence
    • Summary Court-Martial
    • Multiplicity in the Military
    • Sentencing Severity
  • Discharge Review Board Lawyer
  • Administrative Separation Board Lawyer
  • Records Corrections
    • Reprimand Appeals
    • Evaluation Report Appeals
    • Qualitative Management Program Cases
    • Titling Actions
    • Cadet and Midshipmen Misconduct
  • Notable Cases
    • My Lai
    • Abu Ghraib
    • Haditha
    • Maywand District Murders
    • US v Scott
    • MARSOC
  • Our Team
    • Gary Myers
    • Daniel Conway
    • Brian Pristera
    • Lauren Johnson-Naumann
    • Joseph Galli
    • Matthew Flynn
  • Videos

The Concept of Multiplicity

Most clients struggle when they first hear about the concept of multiplicity. 

In United States v. Campbell, 71 M.J. 19 (C.A.A.F. 2012), the court reiterated the distinction between the concepts of multiplicity and unreasonable multiplication of charges.  Campbell, 71 M.J. at 23. 

“The prohibition against multiplicity is necessary to ensure compliance with the constitutional and statutory restrictions against Double Jeopardy …” United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334, 337 (C.A.A.F. 2001)).

“The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy provides that an accused cannot be convicted of both an offense and a lesser-included offense.”  United States v. Hudson, 59 M.J. 357 (C.A.A.F. 2004)(citations omitted); see also Article 44, UCMJ, 10 USC § 844 (2012).  Double jeopardy protection extends to prevent multiple punishments for the same offense at a single criminal trial.  Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (1985); Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984).     

The test to determine whether two offenses are factually the same, and therefore are greater and lesser-included offenses to each other, is the “elements” test.  United States v. Foster, 40 M.J. 140, 142 (C.M.A. 1994). See also United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465, 470 (C.A.A.F. 2010); United States v. Leak, 61 M.J. 234 (C.A.A.F. 2005).  Under this test, the court considers “whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.”  Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).  “[T]hoses elements required to be alleged in the specification, along with the statutory elements, constitute the elements of the offense for the purpose of the elements test.”  United States v. Weymouth, 43 M.J. 329, 340 (C.A.A.F. 1995).   

​“By contrast, the prohibition against unreasonable multiplication of charges addresses those features of military law that increase the potential for overreaching in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”  Quiroz, 55 M.J. at 337.  The analysis for unreasonable multiplication of charges claims is guided by a list of non-exclusive factors enumerated in Quiroz.  No one factor is a prerequisite, and one or more of the factors can be sufficiently compelling to warrant relief.  “[T]he concept of unreasonable multiplication of charges may apply differently to findings than to sentencing.”  Campbell,  71 M.J. 23.  “In summary, at trial three concepts may arise: multiplicity for double jeopardy purposes; unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to findings, and unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to sentence.”  Id. at 24.
Court-Martial Appeals
​Petitions for a New Trial
​Insufficiency of the Evidence
Sentencing Severity
Appeals Blog Articles
​


Free Initial Consultation
Confidential. Insightful. Valuable.

(800) 355-1095 WORLDWIDE 24hrs
Submit
​Initial consultations are confidential, but do not constitute the creation of an attorney-client relationship.
Free Initial Consultation

(800) 355-1095 Worldwide Toll Free (24h)
(210) 568-2760 (digital fax)
myers@mclaw.us
​www.mcmilitarylaw.com

The information on this page is informational in nature. Nothing on this or associated pages should be construed as legal advice for a particular case. Likewise, the information on this website does not constitute the creation of an attorney-client relationship. No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
This military law firm has a worldwide presence serving locations such as Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Iraq, Quantico, Washington, DC, Fort Drum, Fort Stewart, Fort Lewis, Fort Eustis, Camp Pendleton, Camp LeJune, Schofield Barracks, Norfolk Naval Station, Lackland AFB, Langley Air Force Base, Fort Sam Houston, Fort Bliss, Germany, Korea, and all other installations.
Home
UCMJ Lawyers

Forms, Downloads, & Regulations
Recent Results
​Military Law Blog

Contact​
Payment Options
SiteLock
​© All Rights Reserved​
  • Court-Martial Lawyers
    • Military Sexual Assault Lawyer - Article 120, UCMJ
    • Military Failed Drug Test
    • Article 80 Attempts
    • Article 81 Conspiracy
    • Article 118 Murder
    • Article 128 Assault - Military Assault Charges >
      • Maltreatment
      • Theft and Larceny Cases >
        • Article 132 Frauds Against the United States
      • Parental Discipline Cases
    • AWOL and Desertion >
      • Article 85 Desertion
    • Article 133 Conduct Unbecoming
    • Disrespect Offenses >
      • Article 92, UCMJ Failure to Obey an Order
    • Article 107 False Official Statements >
      • Obstruction of Justice
    • Pornography Cases
  • Court-Martial Appeals
    • Petitions for a New Trial
    • Legal and Factual Insufficiency of the Evidence
    • Summary Court-Martial
    • Multiplicity in the Military
    • Sentencing Severity
  • Discharge Review Board Lawyer
  • Administrative Separation Board Lawyer
  • Records Corrections
    • Reprimand Appeals
    • Evaluation Report Appeals
    • Qualitative Management Program Cases
    • Titling Actions
    • Cadet and Midshipmen Misconduct
  • Notable Cases
    • My Lai
    • Abu Ghraib
    • Haditha
    • Maywand District Murders
    • US v Scott
    • MARSOC
  • Our Team
    • Gary Myers
    • Daniel Conway
    • Brian Pristera
    • Lauren Johnson-Naumann
    • Joseph Galli
    • Matthew Flynn
  • Videos