Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Simmons

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided September 30, 1993No. 67,618; CMR No. 9002290Published

1ConcurrenceGierke, Judge

I agree with the holding in the principal opinion that trial counsel failed to discover and disclose exculpatory information which was either known to him or would have become known “by the exercise of due diligence.” RCM 701(a)(2)(B), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984. While I agree with Judge Crawford (infra) that trial counsel did not violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), because the exculpatory evidence could have been discovered by a reasonably diligent defense counsel, I read RCM 701 as being broader than Brady. Thus, I would hold…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. United States v. SimmonsU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API