United States v. Ludlow
United States Court of Military Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court
2Per curiam
We granted review to determine whether corrective action is required because the trial counsel argued that “an extremely serious and heavy penalty should be . [imposed] primarily to serve as a deterrent to others.” In United States v. Mosely, 1 M.J. 350 (C.M.A. 1976), the Court held that such argument by government counsel was improper. In United States v. Varacalle, 4 M.J. 181 (C.M.A. 1978), the Court concluded that general deterrence of others could be taken into consideration in adjudging a sentence, but it did not reject Mosel/s holding as to the impropriety of trial…
3Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. MoselyUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
- United States v. HendrixUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1972
- United States v. VaracalleUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1978
4Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. JenkinsU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1979
- United States v. MecklerU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
- United States v. CampbellU S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals · 1980
- United States v. UptonU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1980
- United States v. MourerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1980
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.