United States v. Edmond
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
1ConcurrenceWiss, Judge
20. The majority asserts: “A review of the record reveals that the 176-day delay in this ease was not due to ‘intentional dilatory conduct’ on the part of the Government.” 41 MJ at 422. It then notes that this record reveals that there was difficulty in contacting potential witnesses and co-accuseds who had “spread throughout the world” after the party; difficulty in finding a suitable Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 832, officer; and the need to obtain further evidence for appellant’s trial by waiting for the trial of co-accused. My own review of the record, however,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. CarlisleUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1988
- United States v. GromUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985
- United States v. DuncanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1993