Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Pierce

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

Decided June 8, 1994No. ACMR 9202428Published

1ConcurrenceRussell, Judge

I concur with the lead opinion. I write separately only to share my disagreement with the dissenters’ view that the lead opinion suggests that a “clearly erroneous” reversal of a rape conviction is not an “exceptional” case warranting en banc review.

*589I.

Issues surrounding sexual conduct by male and female soldiers living together in the barracks evoke strong emotions. The “acquaintance rape” debate has begun to change popular perception regarding the criminalization of all nonconsensual intercourse as rape. Some have determined what a politically correct result should be. Unfortunately,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Coker v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. United States v. BlockerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1991
  4. Mills v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  5. United States v. ShortUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1954

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API