Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Moseley

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided September 30, 1992No. 67,292; NMCM 91 0068Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrawford, Judge

I concur with Part I of the principal opinion and dissent from Part II.

Contrary to precedent, the majority applies an automatic reversal rule where there is a failure to serve the staff judge advocate’s (SJA) recommendation on defense counsel as required by RCM 1106(f)(1), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984. The Court should not automatically set aside an opinion below unless an error materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused. Art. 59(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 859(a). In United States v. De-Grocco, 23 MJ 146 (CMA 1987), this Court *486applied the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. GoodeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
  2. United States v. DeGroccoUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1987
  3. United States v. SkaarU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1985
  4. United States v. BabcockUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
  5. United States v. DiamondUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1984

1 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