Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Brantner

U S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals

Decided December 12, 2000No. CGCMG 0142; Docket No. 1103Published

1ConcurrenceBaum, Chief Judge

I concur with Judge McClelland in all but her treatment of the vagueness issue. In my view, the order in the specifications under Charge I is unconstitutionally vague. I am led to this conclusion by the quoted guideposts from Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972), which Judge McClelland has set out in her opinion. Were it not for U.S. v. Brooks, 20 USCMA 28, 42 CMR 220, 1970 WL 7051 (1970), I would find the regulation in question unenforceable as a punitive general order. Such a holding would not preclude us from affirming lesser included offenses…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. United States v. BivinsCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1998
  4. United States v. SappCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2000
  5. United States v. KellyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1996

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

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

Powered by the Exa API