United States v. Warner
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
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
- Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Palermo v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- United States v. LovingCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1994
- First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United States v. BurrisUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. WarnerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2005