United States v. Player
U S Coast Guard Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION
2Per curiam
Appellate contends that the substitution of one officer for another as a member of this court was not the act of the commanding officer and, as a result, that the court lost jurisdiction and its judgment is void. We do not accept this conclusion.
Trial herein commenced on 13 June 1974 with the usual Article 39(a), 10 U.S.C. § 839(a) session before the military judge without the presence of the appointed members. A continuance was granted to enable the accused to obtain representation by an individual defense counsel. The trial began anew on 2 July 1974 with another Article 39(a)…
3Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. ClevidenceUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
- United States v. LedbetterUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
- United States v. ClevidenceU S Coast Guard Court of Military Review · 1981
- United States v. MilanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
- United States v. OwensU S Coast Guard Court of Military Review · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.