United States v. Sergeant First Class ALAN D. ESLINGER
Army Court of Criminal Appeals
1ConcurrenceCarlton, Judge
I concur. I however write separately to highlight my concern that the majority opinion could be interpreted as limiting government rebuttal in sentencing to the confines of Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 1001(b). I find the majority’s use of R.C.M. 1001(b) to address error occurring during government rebuttal in this case could prove confusing to the practitioner as to applicability of R.C.M. 1001(b) to rebuttal. The majority uses R.C.M. 1001(b) to illustrate the scope of appropriate rebuttal to rehabilitation testimony in light of the error herein where defense presents…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. OhrtUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1989
- United States v. MannsCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2000
- United States v. AurichUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1990
- United States v. GriggsCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2005
- United States v. HallumUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.