United States v. Littlejohn
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ORSER, Judge.
In the above styled case, tried at Incirlik Common Defense Installation, Turkey, the principal issue for resolution is whether the accused’s request for individual counsel was properly denied. For reasons expressed below, we have determined that a limited hearing is required for the purpose of inquiring into an important undeveloped aspect of the matter.
The record shows that before and during the Article 32 investigation of the charges, which began on 9 December 1976 and was completed on 4 February 1977, the accused was represented solely by his requested military counsel,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. DuBayUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1967
- United States v. EasonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1972
- United States v. MurrayUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970
- United States v. CattUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
- United States v. RayUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1971
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. ActonU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1991
- United States v. LittlejohnU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1978
- United States v. FairchildU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1982
- United States v. TurnerU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1983
- United States v. TurnerU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1983