History
  • No items yet
midpage
United States v. Herrmann
2017 CAAF LEXIS 623
C.A.A.F.
2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Sgt. Jared D. Herrmann supervised packing and signed off parachute inspections at Fort Carson’s Consolidated Parachute Rigging Facility.
  • He and subordinate packers agreed to “pencil pack” ~14 reserve parachutes (i.e., not open/inspect/repacks but falsify paperwork) to leave early.
  • The parachutes were at the end of their 365‑day cycle and had been used as training aids with intentionally rigged defects.
  • Deficiencies included missing ejector springs, knotted/stretched closing loops, and degraded cotton ties—conditions that can delay or cause unintentional deployment or malfunctions leading to severe injury or death.
  • The defective parachutes were placed in the ready‑for‑issue cage and therefore could have been issued to jumpers; Herrmann was charged and convicted of willful dereliction and reckless endangerment.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove reckless endangerment (that conduct was "likely" to produce death or grievous bodily harm) Government: placement of defective, ready‑for‑issue parachutes created a likely risk of death/grievous harm given severity of defects and probability they would be issued Herrmann: Gutierrez precedent limits "likely" — low probability incidents (e.g., remote statistical chances) do not satisfy element; here probability insufficient Affirmed: using commonsense meaning of "likely," a rational factfinder could find the defects made death/grievous harm likely under the totality of circumstances

Key Cases Cited

  • Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (established standard for legal sufficiency review)
  • United States v. Gutierrez, 74 M.J. 61 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (held a 1‑in‑500 chance insufficient to show result was "likely")
  • United States v. Dacus, 66 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (instructs courts to consider both probability of harm and magnitude of harm)
  • United States v. Schell, 72 M.J. 339 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (plain‑language statutory interpretation guidance)
  • United States v. Outhier, 45 M.J. 326 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (consistency of "likely" across UCMJ offenses)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Herrmann
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Date Published: Jun 19, 2017
Citation: 2017 CAAF LEXIS 623
Docket Number: 16-0599/AR
Court Abbreviation: C.A.A.F.