Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Rodriguez

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided April 23, 2008No. 07-0685/AFPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1DissentErdmann, Judge

Because I view this court’s precedent in United States v. Walters, 58 M.J. 391 (C.A.AF.2003), and United States v. Seider, 60 M.J. 36 (C.A.A.F.2004), as controlling in this case, I respectfully dissent.

This case presents a slight variation on the principle established in Walters. In both Walters and this case the appellants had been charged with wrongful use of drugs on divers occasions. See 58 M.J. at 392. In Walters the members of the panel issued a general verdict, by exceptions and substitutions, finding him guilty of one unidentified occasion and not guilty of “divers occasions.” 58 M.J.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Griffin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. United States v. WaltersCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2003
  3. United States v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2007
  4. United States v. SeiderCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2004
  5. United States v. AugspurgerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2005

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API