United States v. Miller
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
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
- United States v. GoodeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
- United States v. PaleniusUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
- United States v. SmartUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985
- United States v. IversonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1978
- United States v. KincheloeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1996
- United States v. TysonNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 1996
- United States v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1996