United States v. John

I dissent from the majority’s holding that appellant was properly advised of his rights to counsel as required by United States v. Donohew, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 149, 39 C.M.R. 149 (1969), first, for the reasons stated in my dissent in United States v. Harris, 12 M.J. 707 (N.M.C.M.R.1981) (en banc), and second, because this case is distinguishable from Harris.

In Harris, the majority found that a colloquy between the military judge and accused, similar to the one in this case, satisfied the requirement of United States v. Donohew, supra at 152, that the record of trial contain the accused’s personal…