Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Warner

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided September 30, 2005No. 04-0119/AFPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1DissentCrawford, Judge

I cannot embrace the view of the law, the facts, or the role of this Court that inheres in the majority’s conclusions. Consequently, I must respectfully, but emphatically dissent.

LAW

When enacted in 1950, Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),1 provided, as it does today:

The trial counsel, [the] defense counsel, and the court-martial shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence in accordance with such regulations as the President may prescribe. Process issued in court-martial cases to compel witnesses to appear and testify and to compel the production of…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Palermo v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  3. United States v. LovingCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1994
  4. First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  5. United States v. BurrisUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. WarnerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API