the sentence, and authorized a rehearing on the sentence.may be approved[.2, See 38 U.S.C. § 5303 (2000)(making a discharge adjudged at a general court-, martial a bar to veterans benefits without regard to type of punitive, discharge).bad-conduct discharge and 60 years confinement.
babys skull in a gross and reckless manner (Riley II);D. THE AIR FORCE COURT HAD ALREADY CONCLUDED THAT, DROPPING THE BABY ON THE FLOOR WOULD CONSTITUTE SIMPLE, NEGLIGENCE, NOT CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE. Appellant, then filed a writ-appeal petition with this Court, United States v. Riley, 55, M.J.
Because the reasonableness of any delay between, sentencing and the convening authoritys action is a matter for, consideration initially by the Court of Criminal Appeals, see, United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J.he has asserted his right to speedy appellate review;is evident in Petitioner's case.
fraudulent separation.predicate to proceeding on the abated charges.on the fraudulent separation charge.trial ruling in Appellants second court-martial.On 16 August 2001, [Appellant] failed to appear, at his Article 32, UCMJ, hearing [on the original, charges].Criminal Appeals, 57 M.J.
WHETHER THE UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF, CRIMINAL APPEALS DECISION CONCERNING THE, ROLE OF THE MILITARY JUDGE IN ADJUDICATING, AND REMEDYING POST-TRIAL PROCESSING DELAY, CLAIMS CONSTITUTES AN ADVISORY OPINION justiciable case or controversy between adverse parties.trial delay.certified issue.
pretrial confinement, it remains restriction and is not, encompassed by the procedural or credit rules under R.C.M. but only a commissioned officer, may order an enlisted person into pretrial, restraint and only a commanding officer may, order a civilian or officer into pretrial, restraint.
Appellants case on October 31, 2002.Government mailed a copy of the courts decision to Appellant.1, The Government has not contested the timeliness of this, Petition for Grant of Review.motions to file supplements out of time;non-compliance with our Rules.omissions by appellate counsel.
Chief Judge CRAWFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.Thurman Phillips, and stated: That bitch lied on me. United States v. New, 55 M.J.A. The Order was not Unconstitutionally Overbroad in, Violation of the First Amendment.Appellant did with Mr. Phillips, was to violate the order.
Judge ERDMANN delivered the opinion of the Court.WHETHER APPELLANTS PLEA OF GUILTY TO, SPECIFICATION 5 OF CHARGE III IS, PROVIDENT WHERE THE ALLEGEDLY FALSE, STATEMENT WAS INFORMATION OMITTED FROM, AN OTHERWISE LITERALLY TRUE STATEMENT TO, THE CID.room shared by PFC Winchell and Appellant.
WHETHER TWO ALTERNATE ENLISTED MEMBERS WHO SAT, ON APPELLANTS COURT-MARTIAL WERE IMPROPERLY, DETAILED, AND WHETHER THEIR PRESENCE WAS, INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONVENING AUTHORITYS, INTENT, AND THEREBY RENDERED THE PROCEEDINGS A, NULLITY.(f) if, at trial, a panel falls below, quorum.consolidated.
PVT Smoyers case.PVT Smoyer had injected SPC Coffin with heroin. This court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence that Specialist Smoyer's, immunized statement and any other subsequent statements were, not derived from Specialist Mapes' immunized testimony or, other immunized statements.
In his unsworn statement, the accused made, reference to the possibility of an, administrative discharge.The issue concerning the possibility of the, administrative discharge of the accused is, not a matter before this court.instructions he previously reviewed with counsel.
1, The Naval Legal Service Office [hereinafter NLSO] detailed this defense, counsel to Appellants case, independent of the Governments request on April, 11, immediately after charges were preferred, that defense counsel be, detailed.review on appeal for speedy trial issues is de novo.
MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 807, WHEN THE STATEMENTS WERE, NEITHER RELIABLE NOR NECESSARY GIVEN THE FACT THAT CT WAS, FEVER-RIDDEN AND ON MULTIPLE NARCOTICS AT THE TIME SHE GAVE, THE STATEMENTS AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT SHE WAS PRESENT TO, TESTIFY AT TRIAL.defense requested CTs medical records.
Supreme Court. A court-, martial conviction is final when:, (1) Review is completed by a Court of, Criminal Appeals and –, (A) The accused does not file a, timely petition for review by the Court, of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the, case is not otherwise under review by, that court;
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE ALLOWED THE, GOVERNMENT TO PRESENT VIDEOTAPED EVIDENCE, OVER DEFENSE, OBJECTION, FOR THE LIMITED MIL.R.EVID.CHANGING THE DATES OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE BY TWO YEARS.deliberations on findings.between Appellant and Ms. AL during the charged time period.
statements about Appellant to her mother. Further as in Faciane, there is, insufficient evidence for us to draw the inference, that [the child] must have known that any statement, she made would help her in treatment.court's reliance on United States v. Lingle, 27 M.J.
THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL'S ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO, TURN OVER HER FILE UNDER HER STATE BAR RULES.in Yuba City.information. on Profl Responsibility & Conduct, Formal Op. No. 1994-134, (1994)(requiring attorney to make file available to client or successor, counsel on demand, with limited exceptions);
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE, MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT ABUSE HIS DISCRETION IN, ADMITTING THE VICTIMS INCULPATORY STATEMENTS TO HIS, ROOMMATE UNDER THE EXCITED UTTERANCE EXCEPTION TO THE, RULE AGAINST HEARSAY.Appellants confession into evidence. BM3, Felton.BM3 PW to BM3 Felton.
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING, APPELLANTS MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FROM, APPELLANTS HOME AND STORAGE AREA WHERE, UNDER, THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, APPELLANT DID, NOT VOLUNTARILY CONSENT TO THE SCOPE OF THE, SEARCH CONDUCTED.SA Hoter introduced herself to SSG McMahon.
