United States v. Franklin
U.S. Army Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
*786OPINION OF THE COURT
COOK, Senior Judge:
During the course of the post-trial interview appellant asserted “that his defense counsel didn’t care enough or try hard enough in his behalf.” The counsel to whom appellant was referring nevertheless was designated to perform the review of the staff judge advocate’s post-trial review as required by United States v. Goode, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 367, 50 C.M.R. 1, 1 M.J. 3 (1975) and he so acted in that regard. For all the record shows, this same counsel was the one assigned to perform the other post-trial duties envisioned by United States v. Palenius, 2 M.J.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. GoodeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
- United States v. PaleniusUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. RoganU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1984
- United States v. ClarkU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1986
- United States v. RossU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1977
- United States v. StithU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
- United States v. HathawayU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1977
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.