WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE IMPROPERLY, ENTERED FINDINGS REGARDING APPELLANT'S GUILT, AFTER FINAL ADJOURNMENT IN A POST-TRIAL 39(a), SESSION TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF, APPELLANT.said or done at the court-martial.(duty of trial counsel to ensure an accurate record).condemn such conduct.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT, FINDING THAT THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSELS, ERROR MATERIALLY PREJUDICED APPELLANTS, SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS WHERE HE ARGUED THAT A, DISCHARGE WAS APPROPRIATE EVEN THOUGH, APPELLANT HAD NOT REQUESTED IT.discharge in his case when questioned by defense counsel.
LARCENY, IS A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF, THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE II, CONDUCT, UNBECOMING AN OFFICER BY COMMITTING, LARCENY, AND IS THEREFORE MULTIPLICIOUS. A conviction for killing in, the course of a rape cannot be had without, proving all the elements of the offense of, rape.
And every one of these members of, the panel obeys orders, and if they obey an order, thats, not a basis for them now to be challenged just because, whats at issue in this case is disobeying an order.solely question of law for president of court-martial).violated the U.S. Army Uniform Regulation.
reviewing his case.1, Our decision in United States v. Lynn, 54 MJ 202 (2000), describes, the practice of the Appellate Government Division in responding to defense, motions for enlargement of time, as well as Judge Dormans policy on recusal, related to his prior assignment.
With respect to Issue I, it is not apparent, what standard was employed by the Court of, Criminal Appeals in addressing the question of, whether appellant carried his burden of proving, the defense of lack of mental responsibility by, clear and convincing evidence.of review.time of each offense.
interest other than an official interest in appellants case. The convening authority, for, example, not only decides whether to prosecute charges at court-, martial, but is also responsible for selecting the members of the, court.investigation.Col M agreed to the reassignment of appellant.
67(b), UCMJ, 10 USC § 867(b) (providing that an accused may petition for, grant of review within sixty days of actual or constructive service of the, Court of Criminal Appeals decision).appellate defense counsel. WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE, DEFENSE COUNSEL.
This Court held that since the, military judge relied only on the disclaimers made by the challenged member, during voir dire, her decision to deny the challenge for cause was in error, on the question of implied bias.bias at trial COL Williams, MAJ Gonsalves, and CSM Arroyo.in the same case.
this offense. We, need not decide whether appellant could have been lawfully found, guilty of conspiracy in these circumstances. your, plans to kill the Bells, and you and, Private Armann both got information from, PFC Bell concerning the address and daily, schedules of Joyce and Jerry Bell;
33 days credit against the adjudged confinement.BECAUSE THE OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE FAILED TO, COMPLY WITH THE MILITARY JUDGES ORDER TO PUBLISH A, NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DETAILING THE PRETRIAL PUNISHMENT, INFLICTED UPON APPELLANT.pretrial confinement.appellants actions.confinement credit.
Lance Corporal (LCpl) Epley and the appellant.According to the statement the appellant made to, an investigator, LCpl Epley leaned out of the window, with all of his weight, and his exit was different, from the others because he went right out instead of, crawling out as the others had done.
Judge SULLIVAN delivered the opinion of the Court.After talking with A1C Walker at SSgt, Rs apartment, three police officers went, to the appellants residence. third, failure of the, local police to advise the Appellant of, his Miranda rights prior to questioning, him; 530 U.S. at 435.statement;
excused as a witness with no objection from the defense. And that, statement was made by Boggs and it goes to his state of mind, at the time the statement was made, and it's not going—it's, not hearsay.basis for admitting SPC Sauls testimony., Defense counsel offered the evidence under Mil.
Counsel, For Appellant: Captain Steven P. Haight (argued);cash and property from AAFES. 46e(1) and 48e, Part IV, Manual for Courts-, Martial, United States (1998 ed.).that appellants conviction of Specification 4 of Charge II did, not have a substantial influence on the approved sentence.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT, UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT WAS ADMISSIBLE IN, SENTENCING WHERE THE UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT DID, NOT DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE CHARGED OFFENSES AS, REQUIRED BY RCM 1001(b).the charged larceny.appellants sentence.when he admitted the contested evidence in this case.
WHETHER THE UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY FAILING, TO CONSIDER WHETHER APPELLANTS SENTENCE, SATISFIED A SENTENCE UNIFORMITY STANDARD AS, INTENDED BY CONGRESS WHEN IT ADOPTED ARTICLE 66(c). United States v. Lacy, 50 MJ, 286, 288 (1999);
WHETHER APPELLANTS PLEAS OF GUILTY, WERE IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE THE CONVENING, AUTHORITY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF, THE PRETRIAL AGREEMENT THAT REQUIRED, APPELLANT TO RECEIVE PAY AND ALLOWANCES, UNTIL THE CONVENING AUTHORITY TOOK ACTION IN, HIS CASE.GCMCO No. 1.referral of the charges.
WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL, APPEALS ERRED BY USING OTHER UNCORROBORATED, ADMISSIONS OF THE ACCUSED AND EVENTS NOT, CONNECTED IN TIME OR PLACE TO THE ALLEGED, CRIME IN DETERMINING THAT APPELLANTS, CONFESSION WAS ADEQUATELY CORROBORATED.chaplain referred appellant to a family therapist.
Judge EFFRON delivered the opinion of the Court.General Article);case basis.multiplicity of offenses for sentencing purposes.U.S. 684 (1980);3, No legal authority is cited in United States v. Foster for a, power to dismiss such charges.they are multiplicious for findings as a matter of law.
