Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Butcher

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided October 19, 2001No. 00-0632/AFPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSullivan, Senior Judge

I agree with the majority that abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review of *95a military judge’s recusal decision.1 Although, I conclude that the military judge’s extra-trial activities were imprudent, his refusal to recuse himself in this case did not constitute error. Finally, I cannot accept the finding of “waiver” of the unreasonable-multiplieation-of-charges claim nor will I join an opinion effectively granting the lower courts equity-type powers under Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 USC § 866(c). See United States v. Quiroz, 55 MJ 334, 345 (2001) (Sullivan, J., dissenting).

Recusal

The…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. United States v. QuirozCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2001
  4. United States v. TetersUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1993
  5. United States v. ClaxtonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1991

4 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