Legal Opinion

United States v. Plott

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided November 23, 1993No. ACM 29343 (reh)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT UPON REHEARING

HEIMBURG, Senior Judge:

This case is before us a second time after a rehearing on sentence. See United States v. Plott, 35 M.J. 512 (A.F.C.M.R.1992). Staff Sergeant Plott asserts six errors in the rehearing of his case. Finding none persuasive, we affirm.

I. SEVERANCE OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

During the rehearing, Sergeant Plott moved to “stay all proceedings until such time as the government makes available to him his requested Individual Military Defense Counsel,” Major B. After admitting a stipulation of essential facts and hearing the testimony of…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. United States v. PaleniusUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
  3. United States v. WeissUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1992
  4. United States v. GrafUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1992
  5. United States v. MurrayUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. MillerUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 1996
  2. United States v. SillsUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API