Rule of Lenity

The Rule of Lenity basically says that ambiguities in penal statutes are usually construed in favor of the accused. "The fundamental purposes of the rule are to ensure that defendants have fair warning of the boundaries of criminal conduct; that Congress, not the judiciary, defines criminal liability; and that selective or arbitrary enforcement be minimized." See Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 158 (1990); United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 952 (1988).

This Rule of Lenity is a useful rule to remember when arguing not just statutes, but also the meaning of Service regulations. You can use the rule in motions practice, motions under R.C.M. 917, and even verbiage in instructions and argument.

An excellent discussion of the rule, it's history, and applications can be found in the Petitioner's and Respondent's briefs in Burgess v. United States, , now pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Fourth Circuit opinion in that case which is part of Petitioner's brief.