Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Schwade

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided July 1, 1976No. ACM S24350Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHerman, Judge

I have no difference with the decision of my brethren as far as it goes, but we part philosophic company with respect to the treatment of the Additional Charge and its specification. At the appropriate time in the trial, defense counsel moved to dismiss1 this allegation of a failure to repair, on the grounds that it violated paragraph 26c, Manual for Courts-Martial, 1969 (Rev.), which provides:

Ordinarily, charges for minor derelictions should not be joined with charges for serious offenses. For example, a charge of failure to report for a routine roll call should not be joined with a charge…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. MarymontUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1960
  2. United States v. AbbottUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1967
  3. United States v. HinesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API