Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Wordlow

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

Decided February 28, 1985No. SPCM 20018Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWold, Senior Judge

This case involves a clause in a pretrial agreement similar to that discussed in United States v. Cross, 19 M.J. 973 (A.C. M.R.1985), i.e., “If no discharge is adjudged, the Convening Authority makes no agreement concerning any confinement he may approve.” The case was tried at Fort Knox, Kentucky.

At trial, appellant put on no evidence in extenuation or mitigation, but made an unsworn statement as follows:

Sir, I know I made a mistake and I think I’ve been punished enough for that mistake. I’ve already done some time in confinement. I’ve lost all my rank and most of my money. I’m getting —…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. CrossU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API