United States v. Griggs
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrawford, Judge
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the evidence at trial was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance used and distributed by Appellant was illegal. On the question of evidentiary error, however, I cannot agree that the military judge abused his discretion by excluding certain phrases from documents offered by the defense in its sentencing case. Nor can I conclude, after considering all the sentencing evidence and weighing Appellant’s crimes against his sentence, that if there were any error that it was prejudicial.
FACTS
Two critical factual aspects of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United States v. OhrtUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1989
- United States v. AurichUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1990
- United States v. GriggsCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2005
- United States v. RamosCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.