Legal Opinion
United States v. Clark
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Decided September 30, 2005No. 04-0722/AFPublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Chief Judge GIERKE
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Generally, in the absence of a privilege, any relevant statement by an accused could be admitted into evidence by the Government as a statement of a party opponent.1 M.R.E. 302, however, maintains the integrity of the sanity review process by protecting an accused when a sanity review board is ordered under Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 706. Any statement made by the accused or any derivative evidence obtained through use of such a statement is confidential and may not be admitted into evidence.2 But there is no privilege under M.R.E.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Jaffee v. RedmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Buchanan v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. Billy G. ByersCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- United States v. WeeksUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- United States v. TooheyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2006
- United States v. HunterCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2008
- United States v. SheltonCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2006
- United States v. SimmermacherCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2015
- United States v. McAllisterCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2007
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.