at issue in this appeal., Did the military judge abuse her discretion when she, denied the overnight continuance requested by trial, counsel, and directed the government to rest its case, despite having three more witnesses to present ruling excludes evidence under Article 62, UCMJ.Browers, 20 M.J.
at issue in this appeal., Did the military judge abuse her discretion when she, denied the overnight continuance requested by trial, counsel, and directed the government to rest its case, despite having three more witnesses to present ruling excludes evidence under Article 62, UCMJ.Browers, 20 M.J.
at issue in this appeal., Did the military judge abuse her discretion when she, denied the overnight continuance requested by trial, counsel, and directed the government to rest its case, despite having three more witnesses to present ruling excludes evidence under Article 62, UCMJ.Browers, 20 M.J.
3, SrA McPherson asserts that there is a split among service, courts on this issue.Article 58 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, states categorically that military prisoners housed in, Bureau of Prisons facilities shall be subject to the, same treatment as their civilian counterparts.
between Sgt Muratori and Appellant. Therefore, applying, our prior case law without the benefit of Jones, Judge Fischer, found Appellants incriminatory statement to be admissible.483 (requiring that each branch of the Armed Forces establish a, Ready Reserve comprised of units or members, or both).
We therefore affirm Appellants conviction.including Appellant, was assigned to fly on flight TA4B702.defense counsel did not move pursuant to R.C.M.Ramstein Air Base, Germany, to Manas Air Base, Kyrgyzstan.Well, the government has charged that Sergeant Treat, missed a flight on that date.
We therefore affirm Appellants conviction.including Appellant, was assigned to fly on flight TA4B702.defense counsel did not move pursuant to R.C.M.Ramstein Air Base, Germany, to Manas Air Base, Kyrgyzstan.Well, the government has charged that Sergeant Treat, missed a flight on that date.
The charges and specifications referred to a general, court-martial on 16 June 2011 in the case of United, States v. AST2 Jaason M. Leahr, USCG, are hereby, withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice.whether Appellant was brought to trial on the new charges .United States v. Koke, 34 M.J.
surveillance of Appellant making the alleged transactions. Similarly, the appellants, misconduct could not have been charged as a larceny, against US Bank, because US Bank was wholly repaid for, the appellants purchases, just as it would be for, authorized purchases.
surveillance of Appellant making the alleged transactions. Similarly, the appellants, misconduct could not have been charged as a larceny, against US Bank, because US Bank was wholly repaid for, the appellants purchases, just as it would be for, authorized purchases.
[T]he Appointments Clause of Article II is more, than a matter of etiquette or protocol; Appellants in, several of the other recalled cases had already challenged Judge, Soybels appointment in petitions for review at this Court.Judge Soybel.the statutory authority to appoint inferior officers.
on the ecstasy charge. On adjudicative facts this is always the case., However, during the merits part of the court-martial, the, government offered no evidence that ecstasy was a Schedule I, controlled substance, nor did it request that the military judge, take judicial notice of this fact.
suspected Appellant of the crime, and the statement he elicited, pertained to the offense for which Appellant was suspected, the, only question remaining in this case is whether SPC Ellis, interrogated or requested any statement from Appellant.part of his official law enforcement duties.
2, The military judge, sitting as a general court-martial, also, convicted Appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of two, specifications of failure to go to his appointed place of duty, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. ยง 886 (2012).916 in issue);warrant a defense of property instruction.
Judge RYAN delivered the opinion of the Court.1, Appellants AFCCA brief and the AFCCAs decision are a reminder, for counsel and military judges alike to distinguish accurately, between multiplicity and an unreasonable multiplication of, charges.offense of burglary under Article 129, UCMJ);
2, None of the messages sent by Gutierrez during this period of, time contained overt threats, but were repeated requests for AM, to talk with him.doorbell while calling her phone and sending her text messages.conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm.by Article 120a, UCMJ.
404 Not Found, Not Found, The requested URL /newcaaf/opinions/2013SepTerm/14-0009.pdf was not found on this server., IIS 7.9.9 (Windows 2003 Server) Server at www.armfor.uscourts.gov Port 80
WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT ERRED IN FINDING TRIAL, COUNSELS PRESENTENCING ARGUMENT WAS HARMLESS ERROR WHERE, TRIAL COUNSEL INSINUATED THAT APPELLANT WILL COMMIT FUTURE, ACTS OF CHILD MOLESTATION.assessing trial counsels sentencing argument.than ten years we find no evidence of prejudice.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION, IN DENYING A DEFENSE REQUESTED INSTRUCTION ON, INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION, AND ERRED IN FAILING TO, INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS ON THE EFFECT OF, INTOXICATION ON APPELLANTS ABILITY TO FORM, SPECIFIC INTENT AND PREMEDITATION.treatment with Chantix.
and provided a phone to Detective Rico.Appellants data. The, military judge concluded that Bexar Countys analysis of the, SIM card revealed that no information was resident on the card., Fourth was Detective Ricos search of Appellants cell phone, which she received from TSgt Roberts.same evidence.
