United States v. Evans

I dissent.

While, in view of our differing positions, no law is made here, I believe that in sustaining the arbitrary and capricious action of the law officer in this case, the principal opinion not only ignores the salutary holdings of this Court in United States v Cates, 9 USCMA 480, 26 CMR 260; United States v Young, 10 USCMA 249, 27 CMR 323; and United States v Lock, 13 USCMA 611, 33 CMR 143, but does so by placing a premium on the ability of a defense counsel to deceive and outface the law officer in order to obtain a later reversal, when he may in fact have been completely unable to…