Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Quintanilla

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

Decided January 31, 2005No. NMCCA 9801632Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRitter, Senior Judge

I concur with the majority opinion, except as to the appropriate remedy for the military judge’s erroneous grant of the Government’s challenge for cause against Master Sergeant (MSgt) Buckham. I am not persuaded that the findings must be set aside. I would vote to set aside the sentence only, and order a rehearing on sentence.

The majority properly cites two United States Supreme Court decisions that found only the sentence is affected when a juror is improperly dismissed because of his or her views on capital punishment that do not rise to the level of “preventing or substantially impairing”…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Witherspoon v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Adams v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Gray v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. United States v. GilesCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1998
  5. United States v. PritchettNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API