Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Greene

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided September 29, 1994No. 93-1084; CMR No. 9201234Published

1ConcurrenceSullivan, Chief Judge

I concur in the result reached by the majority. The secret written ballot was designed to protect against the intentional, as well as unintentional, influence of command and rank in panel deliberations. See United States v. Kendrick, 29 MJ 792, 793 (ACMR 1989). Furthermore, a post-trial affidavit by a member of the court-martial panel may be used when undue or unlawful command influence is said to have occurred during panel deliberations. United States v. Stone, 26 MJ 401 (CMA 1988). Moreover, neither I nor the majority of this Court have rejected use by the court below of a post-trial…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. BolandUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970
  2. United States v. StoneUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1988
  3. United States v. KendrickU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1989
  4. United States v. GreeneU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API