United States v. Rodriquez
U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
ABERNATHY, Judge:
Appellant assigns the following error for our consideration:
THE APPELLANT’S PLEA WAS IMPROVIDENT AS IT WAS ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PRETRIAL AGREEMENT WHICH VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY BY REQUIRING APPELLANT TO STIPULATE TO THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES.
In support of this assignment, appellant invites the Court’s attention to our holding in United States v. Neal, 3 M.J. 593, (N.C.M.R.1977), apparently relying on dicta in the lead opinion to the effect that “[i]n a proper case, however, upon a showing that the accused was forced to agree to trial counsel’s terms for a stipulation…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. EymerU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1976
- United States v. NealU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1977
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. SharperU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1984