Legal Opinion

United States v. Donohue

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided March 22, 1990No. ACM 28220PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION

KASTL, Senior Judge:

During presentencing proceedings, it is clear that the prosecution may now offer relevant material from the commander’s or supervisor’s Personnel Information File (PIF). See Air Force Regulation 111-1, Military Justice Guide, paragraph IS — 4b(1) (30 September 1988). The regulation provides that relevant material is admissible if:(b) There is some evidence on the document or attached thereto that:

1. The accused received a copy of the correspondence ...; and

2. The accused had the opportunity to respond to the allegation.

(Emphasis added).

The issue before us is this:…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. SalesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1986
  2. United States v. BolesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1981
  3. United States v. FontenotUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1989
  4. United States v. KingU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1989
  5. United States v. SmithU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1989

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. DudleyU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1992
  2. United States v. LorencU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API