Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Schuber

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided July 6, 2011No. 11-6002/AFPublished

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

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. United States v. KossmanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1993
  3. United States v. MizgalaCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2005
  4. United States v. RayaCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1996
  5. United States v. LewisCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2007

5 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