Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Kilbourne

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided September 13, 1990No. ACM 28024Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Senior Judge BLOMMERS

(concurring in part, dissenting in part):

I would affirm the findings of guilty of Additional Charge II and its specification (conspiracy to commit perjury) and the approved sentence. I do not believe the military judge committed error by admitting, as a public record under Mil.R.Evid. 803(6), Captain W’s “statement” about the conspiracy made during a prior trial. To label the transcript thereof inadmissible because its content amounts to an “offer of proof” by counsel cuts too fine a line in my judgment. Under the particular facts of this case, I do not believe our prior…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kaplan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
  2. United States v. RheaU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1990
  3. United States v. EastmanU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1985
  4. United States v. MarshallU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API