Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Ledbetter

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided October 22, 1976No. 31,436; ACM 21878Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCook, Judge

As to the timeliness of the convening authority’s post-trial review, discussed in point I of the principal opinion, I agree that the Court of Military Review correctly determined “the Dunlap rule simply does not apply”1 because the accused was released from post-conviction restraint. I do not concur in the implication in footnote 5 that convening authorities in the field have tended to apply Dunlap in a way that is so alien to the spirit of the case that a more rigid rule may be required. Every flexible standard, whether it be probable cause for the issuance of a warrant, determination of the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Barber v. PageSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. United States v. DionisioSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Collier v. United StatesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970
  4. United States v. Chavez-ReyUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
  5. United States v. DavisUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API