Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Lillyblad

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

Decided November 30, 2001No. NMCM 200100235Published

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

  1. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Preiser v. NewkirkSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Hall v. BealsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. United States v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1995
  5. United States v. RussellCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1999

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