Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Rankins

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided July 29, 1992No. 67,069; CM 9100083Published

1DissentWiss, Judge

I dissent. First, for a number of reasons, I am unsettled by that portion of the lead opinion that suggests that the defense of duress, as that defense is defined and applied in military jurisprudence, is limited to threats posed “by third persons,” 34 MJ at 330 n. 2, and does not include threats “from some unavoidable circumstance, condition, or fact which leaves no choice of action,” id. at 328; and I certainly disagree with footnote 2 in which the author judge expresses her personal conclusion that the defense is so limited. Second, viewing that defense in the light in which it…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. JemmingsUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
  2. United States v. WilliamsUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1986
  3. United States v. PinkstonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969
  4. United States v. GuzmanU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1977
  5. United States v. TaltyU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1984

1 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