Legal Opinion

United States v. Manuel

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided May 23, 1994No. ACM 30025PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

GRUNICK, Judge:

The Government failed to retain appellant’s reported cocaine positive urine sample. Under the circumstances of this case, the Government’s failure to exercise due diligence, comply with regulatory guidance and preserve a reported positive urine sample denied appellant equal access to all evidence as required by Article 46, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 846. We set aside appellant’s conviction for the use of cocaine.

FACTS

Appellant was selected to provide a urine sample as part of a random urinalysis conducted at Sheppard Air Force Base on 4 October 1991. The sample was…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. California v. TrombettaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Arizona v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. United States v. CaceresSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. United States v. PeoplesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1990
  5. United States v. GarriesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1986

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. ManuelCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1995
  2. United States v. ManuelCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API