United States v. Rainey
U.S. Army Court of Military Review
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFulton, Judge
I concur in the view that the Government has rebutted the presumption established in United States v. Burton, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 112, 44 C.M.R. 166 (1971). Investigative and prosecutorial officials were faced with unusual and extraordinary circumstances. The record discloses that charging authorities, the Article 32 investigating officer, the staff judge advocate, and the military judge all displayed commendable concern for the rights of appellant and demonstrated so by their actions.
Not concurring in the view that neither of the Article 39(a) sessions in this case tolled the period giving rise to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. BurtonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1971
- McPhail v. United StatesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
- United States v. BeachUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
- United States v. ToweryU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1975
- United States v. HillU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1976