At #589, Red claims that because the prosecution introduced Obama’s eligibility as Lakin’s motive for disobeying the order to which he plead not guilty that Obama’s eligibility is now fair game on appeal.
True? Not true?
True from one witness blogger at the trial who goes by DrKate (Vandevier?). I'm sure Mr. Obot CAAFLOG Sullivan likely ommited it on his website.
No. Motive is not a requisite element of Article 87. It doesn't matter why the accused violated Art. 87, just "That the accused missed the movement through design or neglect".
Clearly, there was ample evidence provided from Lakin himself that demonstrates he missed movement through design.
Of course, he can raise any issue he wishes (as a practical matter). However, that doesn't mean ACCA will find such an argument persuasive. I suspect (if raised) it will be dismissed exactly for the reason I illustrate - it's wholly irrelevant to his guilt.