Legal Opinion

United States v. Hood

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

Decided November 11, 1976No. CM 433892PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

2Per curiam

Appellant’s trial defense counsel left the trial situs for reassignment overseas prior to the preparation of the SJA Review, but after he had examined the record of trial without recorded comment. Before the convening authority acted, the record and review were given to counsel newly appointed “. . . to ensure that the requirements of United States v. Goode . are complied with fully in this ease.” That counsel made a timely, but negative, response in the absence of appellant who had been sent to Fort Leavenworth.

Among the errors alleged is that the requirements of Goode1…

3Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. GoodeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
  2. United States v. FlintUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
  3. United States v. PerezUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1968
  4. United States v. IversonU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1975

4Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. JonesU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1977
  2. United States v. JohnsonU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
  3. United States v. FreemanU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API