United States v. Schuber
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
ERDMANN, Judge,
with whom EFFRON, Chief Judge, joins (dissenting in part and concurring in the result):
This court reviews whether an accused received a speedy trial “de novo as a legal question, giving substantial deference to a military judge’s findings of fact that will be reversed only if they are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Mizgala, 61 M.J. 122, 127 (C.A.A.F.2005). This case presents two issues: whether Schuber’s base restriction constituted “arrest” for purposes of an Article 10, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 810 (2006), speedy trial motion; and whether the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. KossmanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1993
- United States v. MizgalaCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2005
- United States v. RayaCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1996
- United States v. LewisCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.