EO 13262 Title 3--The President 'The victim's right to remain in the courtroom remains subiect to other rules, such as those regarding classified information, witness deportment, and conduct in the courtroom. Subsection (4) is intended to capture only those statutes applicable to courts-martial.". 3. Changes to Appendix 23, the Analysis accompanying the Punitive Arti- cles (Part IV, MCM). a. The Analysis to paragraph 27(e) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "2002 Amendment: The monetary amount affecting the maximum pun- ishments has been revised from $100 to $500 to account for inflation. The last change was in 1969 raising the amount to $\17700. The value has also been readjusted to realign it more closely with the division between felony and misdemeanor penalties in civilian jurisdictions. See generally Amer- ican Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries \365 223A (\177980) (suggesting $500 as the value). The amendment also adds the phrase 'or any firearm or explosive' as an additional criterion. This is because, regard- less of the intrinsic value of such items, the threat to the community is sub- stantial when such items are wrongfully bought, sold, traded, dealt in or disposed.". b. The Analysis to paragraph 3\177(c)(6) is amended to read as follows: "2002 Amendment: Subparagraph c(6), 'Statements made during an in- terrogation,' was removed in light of questions raised by the Court of Ap- peals for the Armed Forces in United States v. Softs, 46 M.J. 3% 35 (C.A.A.F. \177997). In Solis, the court said subparagraph c(6) could be viewed as serving at least three different purposes. It could be (\177) an expansive de- scription of dicta with no intent to limit prosecutions; (2) protection for an accused against overcharging; or (3) guidance for the conduct of investiga- tions. Subparagraph c(6) was never intended to establish either procedural rights for an accused or internal guidelines to regulate government conduct. Subparagraph (c)(6) was based upon United States v. Aronson, 8 U.S.C.M.A. 525, 25 C.M.R. 29 (\177957); United States v. Washington, 9 U.S.C.M.A. \17731, 25 C.M.R. 393 (\177958) and United States v. Davenport, 9 M.}. 364 (C.M.A. \177980) and was intended merely to describe the rule devel- oped in those cases that a false statement to a law enforcement agent, when made by a servicemember without an independent duty to speak, was not 'official' and therefore not within the purview of Article \17707. The subpara- graph is removed because the position of the Court of Military Appeals in the three decisions noted above was abandoned in United States v. Jackson, 26 M.J. 377 (C.M.A. 1988) and the deleted paragraph no longer accurately describes the current state of the law.". c. The Analysis to paragraph 32(e) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "2002 Amendment: The monetary amount affecting the maximum pun- ishments has been revised from $100 to $500 to account for inflation. The last change was in \177969 raising the amount to $\17700. The value has also been readjusted to realign it more closely with the division between felony and misdemeanor penalties in civilian jurisdictions. See generally Amer- ican Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries \365 223A (\177980) (suggesting $500 as the value). Although the monetary amount affecting punishment in 18 U.S.C. \365 \17736% Government property or contracts, and \1778 U.S.C. \365 64% Public money, property or records, was increased from $100 230
�
