Legal Opinion

United States v. Miller

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

Decided November 10, 1994No. NMCM 93 02382PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

REED, Senior Judge:

In this case we decide whether a new convening authority’s action is required when a detailed defense counsel is released from active duty prior to the service of the staff judge advocate’s [SJA] recommendation on him pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial [R.C.M.] 1106, and a substitute counsel, who is appointed for such service, fails to establish an attorney-client relationship with the appellant. Under the specific facts of this case, we hold that a new convening authority’s action is not required.

HISTORY OF THE CASE

The appellant was tried by a military judge sitting as a…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United States v. GoodeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
  2. United States v. PaleniusUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
  3. United States v. SmartUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985
  4. United States v. IversonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1978
  5. United States v. KincheloeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1996
  2. United States v. TysonNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 1996
  3. United States v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API