United States v. Emerson
U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
BAUM, Senior Judge.
Appellant has assigned one error before this Court, that:
THE COURT-MARTIAL WAS JURIS-DICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT INCLUDED A COURT MEMBER NOT FROM THE NAVAL SERVICE.
The convening order for appellant’s special court-martial appointed five officer-members, four from the U. S. Navy and U. S. Naval Reserve and one from the U. S. Coast Guard. Appellant argues that “[t]he record does not even hint, let alone show, that authority to appoint a Coast Guard officer was sought or obtained [pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 4g(3), Manual for Courts-Martial, 1969 (Rev.)].”…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. MasusockUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1951
- United States v. RyanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1978
- United States v. BancroftUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1953
- United States v. HoustonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1967
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. HiltonU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1990