United States v. Morgan
United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
PRICE, Senior Judge:
This is our second review of this case. Originally, the appellant asserted that: (1) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient; and (2) the staff judge advocate (SJA) failed to serve the addendum to the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR) upon the trial defense counsel. In our first decision we found the second assertion meritorious and remanded the record for a new action. We deferred action on the first assignment of error. United States v. Morgan, No. 200001387, 2004 WL 720125 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App.2004). The convening authority has taken a new action and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. WheelusCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1998
- United States v. PaleniusUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
- Boudreaux v. United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military ReviewUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1989
- United States v. SpriggsCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2000
- United States v. AllredNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 1999
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. HutchinsNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2010
- United States v. HutchinsNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2018