United States v. Private First Class MAURICE MCCORMICK, JR.
Army Court of Criminal Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHaight, Judge
I concur with the majority’s resolution of the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. I also agree with the majority that there is a legally viable exception to the general legal principle that a principal cannot be an accessory after the fact to his own offense. However, I disagree with the majority, that we should apply that particular exception to the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, I would dismiss the accessory after the fact offense as an unreasonable multiplication of charges or as factually insufficient.
Appellant aided and abetted his co-actor in the shooting of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. QuirozCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2001
- United States v. WeymouthCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1995
- United States v. GrijalvaCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2001
- United States v. NealyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2012
- United States v. DacusCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.