United States v. Lillyblad
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAnderson, Senior Judge
I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case. During the providence inquiry, the appellant admitted that the Marine he allowed to escape through neglect was a prisoner confined under guard in a Thai Marine barracks room that had been wired shut. The escape occurred when the appellant escorted the Marine to a barber shop to get a haircut and failed to properly supervise him. That admission suffices to sustain a guilty plea to violating Article 96, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 896. See United States v. McDaniel, 52 M.J. 618, 621 (Army Ct.Crim.App.1999)(“[0]nce…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Preiser v. NewkirkSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Hall v. BealsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1995
- United States v. RussellCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.