United States v. Murphy
United States Court of Military Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court
Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge:
The accused challenges the adequacy of the post-trial review by the staff legal officer. In particular, he contends that it provides advice only as to the legal, and not factual, sufficiency of the evidence. See United States v Arthur, 9 USCMA 81, 25 CMR 343; United States v Fields, 9 USCMA 70, 25 CMR 332. However, we note that, in his discussion, the staff legal officer observed that there “is ample evidence ... to support the findings,” and he set out the evidence in detail. He also pointed out that the “main issue” was the “question of fact”…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. FieldsUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958
- United States v. PitcherUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958
- United States v. ArthurUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. HurtUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958
- United States v. CumminsUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958
- United States v. GeibUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958
- United States v. McQuaidUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958