Legal Opinion

United States v. Haynes

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided June 7, 1989No. ACM S28066PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION

KASTL, Senior Judge:

What constitutes “new matter” — meriting a second service on an appellant — when the staff judge advocate supplements his or her review with an Addendum?

In his post-trial handwritten request for clemency, the appellant stated that he “would submit certificates and letters of appreciation but I can’t because I can’t get to them because I am in confinement____” The undated Addendum to the recommendation of the staff judge advocate treated this assertion. It noted that: (1) the Central Base Personnel Office had been contacted; (2) the appellant had been given a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. DeGroccoUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1987
  2. United States v. NarineUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
  3. United States v. AndersonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1987
  4. United States v. WhitakerU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1985
  5. United States v. ClarkU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1986

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. KomorousU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1991
  2. United States v. ThompsonUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 1995
  3. United States v. GodfreyU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API