Legal Opinion

United States v. Madrill

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

Decided June 20, 1978No. CM 436990PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

THORNOCK, Judge:

We reviewed this case pursuant to the statutory requirements of Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866.

We find that the military judge failed to make a complete inquiry into the conditions of the appellant’s pretrial agreement as mandated by United States v. Green, 1 M.J. 453, 456 (C.M.A.1976), and United States v. King, 3 M.J. 458 (C.M.A.1977). The military judge did conduct a Care1 inquiry; . however, his coverage of the various provisions of the pretrial agreement was wanting. His discussion did not specifically address each of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. CareUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969
  2. United States v. GreenUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
  3. United States v. GravesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
  4. United States v. KingUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
  5. United States v. HeflinUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. United States v. DawsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1981
  2. United States v. ThomasU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
  3. United States v. EnglandU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1987
  4. United States v. RoaU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1985
  5. United States v. BianchiU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1987

6 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