Legal Opinion

United States v. Fortier

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided December 19, 1969No. 22,448PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

Since the record in this case fails to reflect compliance with this Court’s directive in United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149, reversal is required.

At the outset of this special court-martial, the following colloquy appears :

“PRES: Does the accused understand that she has a right to have civilian counsol if provided by her?
“DC: Yes, sir.
“PRES: Is the accused satisfied to proceed with the defense counsel presently repi-esenting her?
“ACCUSED: Yes, sir.”

In essence, this is the same type of inquiry which he held in Donohew to minimally comply with…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. United States v. DonohewUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. United States v. BowmanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970
  2. United States v. CopesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
  3. United States v. JerasiU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1985
  4. United States v. CarterUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970
  5. United States v. ScottUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API