United States v. Madrill
U.S. Army Court of Military Review
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
- United States v. CareUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969
- United States v. GreenUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
- United States v. GravesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
- United States v. KingUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
- United States v. HeflinUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
3Cited by11 opinions
- United States v. DawsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1981
- United States v. ThomasU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
- United States v. EnglandU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1987
- United States v. RoaU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1985
- United States v. BianchiU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1987
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.