Legal Opinion
United States v. Ruth
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Decided February 12, 1997No. 96-0155; Crim.App. No. 9400093PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court
COX, Chief Judge:
We granted review of this issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING PRODUCTION OF PROFESSOR DENBEAUX, A DEFENSE EXPERT CRITIC OF HANDWRITING ANALYSIS.
We hold that the military judge did not abuse his discretion in so ruling because he expressly kept the issue open for defense counsel to pursue after evidence had been heard; and defense counsel’s failure to raise the question for reconsideration waived any appellate complaint as to the initial ruling.1
Facts
The theme of the Government’s case was that appellant and an active-duty…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Coppedge v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- United States v. HouserUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1993
- United States v. GarriesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- United States v. McElhaneyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2000
- United States v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
- United States v. RockwoodCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1999
- United States v. CalhounCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1998
- United States v. DiazNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2005
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.