United States v. Pompey
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
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
- United States v. OhrtUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1989
- United States v. MackUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1980
- United States v. HornerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1986
- United States v. AllenU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1990
- United States v. AurichUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1990
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.