This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D agreed to sell marijuana to an undercover military police investigator. She received payment upon delivery of the drug. The only two co-conspirators named in the conspiracy specification are D and the undercover investigator. Everything said and done by that investigator indicated a concurrence of purpose with that of D; and the action of the two persons would also have suggested to any observer that an agreement had been reached. D was convicted and appealed. The court of appeals overturned the conviction for conspiracy. The United States Appealed, and a question was certified as to whether the unilateral or bilateral theories of conspiracy applied to the UCMJ.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.