Legal Opinion

United States v. Rodriquez

U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review

Decided October 30, 1981No. NMCM 80 0941PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. United States v. EymerU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1976
  2. United States v. NealU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1977

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. SharperU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API