Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

United States v. Langston

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided March 14, 1991No. ACM 28587PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

RIVES, Judge:

The appellant urges that his right to a fair trial was violated when the military judge denied his motion for an expert witness and then allowed the trial counsel to impeach the “adequate substitute” witness on cross-examination. We disagree.

Before and during trial, the defense made various requests for both an expert witness and an expert consultant. The distinction between the two kinds of expert assistance may not have been fully appreciated. Counsel in this case intermingled the two, creating needless confusion at both the trial and appellate levels. The…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. United States v. GarriesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1986
  3. United States v. TornowskiU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1989
  4. United States v. TurnerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1989
  5. United States v. TrueU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1989

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. United States v. WarnerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2005
  2. United States v. BranoffU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1992
  3. United States v. WarnerUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 2003
  4. United States v. RobinsonUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 1995
  5. Jerome A. Tornowski v. Col. William L. HartCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1993

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API