United States v. Fairchild
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
*919ORDER
2Per curiam
The accused argues that since the offense of which he was convicted was committed prior to his discharge and reenlistment the court-martial lacked jurisdiction. United States v. Ginyard, 16 U.S.C.M.A. 512, 37 C.M.R. 132 (1967); see also, United States v. Clardy, 13 M.J. 308 (C.M.A.1982).
The issue of jurisdiction was never raised at trial. Instead, it was first asserted by civilian counsel in response to the staff judge advocate’s review. The issue is not developed in the staff judge advocate’s addendum or elsewhere in the allied papers, except for concise analysis in the pre-trial advice…
3Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. DuBayUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1967
- United States v. ClardyUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
- United States v. PennUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969
- United States v. LopezUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970
- United States v. RehornUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. TuckerU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1983
- United States v. FairchildU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1991
- United States v. FairchildUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983