Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Manos

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided May 5, 1967No. 19,779Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partQuinn, Chief Judge

I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the convening authority abused his discretion in denying the defense request for certain witnesses. The convening authority specifically observed the request did not indicate that any of the desired testimony was “relevant regarding the innocence or guilt of the accused.” As to the value of the testimony for the purpose of sentence, the letter-ruling referred to several factors which the convening authority apparently considered sufficient to justify denial of the defense request.

First, the convening authority pointed out that the three military…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. MitchellUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1965
  2. United States v. OliverUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API