United States v. Howard
U.S. Army Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
GILLEY, Judge:
Despite his pleas of not guilty, the military judge found the accused, a'male drill sergeant, guilty of improper advances towards four female trainees and an improper social relationship with a male trainee, in violation of a lawful general regulation. He also found the accused guilty of consensual sodomy with one of these female trainees on two occasions. These offenses violated Articles 92 and 125, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. §§ 892 and 925. The military judge sentenced the accused to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. AllenUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1984
- United States v. BlairU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1986
- United States v. DarvilleUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1978
- United States v. EstillUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958
- United States v. EcoffeyU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. HillU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1988
- United States v. BryantU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1988
- United States v. PetersonU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1990
- United States v. LomanU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1987