Legal Opinion

United States v. Barfield

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided February 1, 1977No. 26,547; CM 428401PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court

COOK, Judge:

On a previous appeal, this Court authorized a rehearing for sentencing because of prejudicial error in the denial of a defense request for a continuance to obtain an *137Army psychiatrist, Dr. Gould, as a witness. 22 U.S.C.M.A. 321, 46 C.M.R. 321 (1973). The question here is the correctness of the trial judge’s denial, at the rehearing, of a defense motion, under paragraph 81b (2), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Rev.), to suspend the proceeding and refer to this Court the accused’s contention that his plea of guilty at the original trial was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. CareUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969
  2. United States v. ChancelorUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1966
  3. United States v. KepperlingUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1960
  4. United States v. YaegerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1965

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. United States v. MontesinosUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1989
  2. United States v. MontesinosU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1987
  3. United States v. ZieranU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1982
  4. United States v. FergusonU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1988
  5. United States v. CourtsU S Coast Guard Court of Military Review · 1977

2 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