Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Pompey

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided December 21, 1990No. ACM 28219Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJames, Judge

I would affirm both the findings and the sentence.

I. The Inspection

I agree with the Chief Judge on his disposition of the nomenclature controversy about the urinalysis: The result depends on which label we give to the urinalysis, not on the labels used mistakenly by the various laymen who executed it. I look to their acts and to their intent and then categorize the urinalysis as an inspection of the unit under Mil.R.Evid. 313.

II. Rehabilitation Potential & Rebuttal

I also agree with the Chief Judge’s reasoning on Major Rhye’s testimony that “I would not” [desire to have Airman Pompey return to…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. United States v. OhrtUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1989
  2. United States v. MackUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1980
  3. United States v. HornerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1986
  4. United States v. AllenU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1990
  5. United States v. AurichUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1990

7 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