Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Carter

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided July 8, 1966No. 19,228Published

1ConcurrenceQuinn, Chief Judge

Status of Forces Agreements do not merely define relationships between the United States and the host nations; they also provide many special protections to the accused. For example, there is an express provision against double jeopardy (see United States v Cadenhead, 14 USCMA 271, 34 CMR 51); and, by virtue of the provision for mutual assistance, Article 32 testimony of a civilian witness who refuses to appear in person at the trial is not admissible in evidence unless the assistance of the authorities of the host nation was sought and proved fruitless. United States v Burrow, 16 USCMA 94,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. DeLeoUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1954
  2. United States v. CareyUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1960
  3. United States v. BestDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1948
  4. United States v. BurrowUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1966
  5. United States v. CadenheadUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1963

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

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

Powered by the Exa API