Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Myhrberg

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

Decided July 16, 1976No. SPCM 11830Published

1ConcurrenceJones, Senior Judge

I concur in the opinion of Judge Cook. As this is a reversal of the position I took in United States v. Austin, 51 C.M.R. 16, 2 M.J. 391 (A.C.M.R.1975), I believe an explanation is in order.

For some time I have felt that our opinion in Austin was too restrictive. We interpreted the new rule announced by Judge Ferguson in United States v. Goode, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 367, 50 C.M.R. 1,1 M.J. 3 (1975), in a manner consistent with the facts of Goode and consistent with the prior Court of Military Appeals decisions on the subject. We failed in Austin to give credence to the sweeping nature of the new rule…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. GoodeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
  2. United States v. AustinU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1975
  3. United States v. TurnerU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API