United States v. Hilow

In our initial decision in this case,1 we found that CPT Fierst’s attempt to create a “severe” panel so tainted the selection process as to require a rehearing on sentence. After careful reconsideration, I adhere to our original findings and, for the reasons stated in that opinion and below, respectfully dissent.

I

The majority, while condemning CPT Fierst’s actions, holds that, because the convening authority was properly advised as to Article 25, UCMJ, requirements and personally applied them, the selection process purged the attempt to “stack” the panel. I disagree.

The importance of the…