United States v. Haynes
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
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
- United States v. DeGroccoUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1987
- United States v. NarineUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
- United States v. AndersonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1987
- United States v. WhitakerU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1985
- United States v. ClarkU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. KomorousU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1991
- United States v. ThompsonUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 1995
- United States v. GodfreyU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1992