United States v. Williams
U.S. Army Court of Military Review
1ConcurrenceFelder, Senior Judge
I agree that the trial counsel’s argument was not plain error and the failure to object constitutes waiver. However, I must disassociate myself from any implication of the majority that the remarks of the trial counsel were proper. The so-called “Golden Rule” argument is traditionally recognized as improper because it invites the court members to depart from neutrality and decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence.1 See e.g. United States v. Wood, 40 C.M.R. 3 (C.M.A.1969); United States v. Begley, 38 C.M.R. 488 (A.B.R.1967); Dyer v. State, 154…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Darden v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforoSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- William Anthony Brooks v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1985
- Warnie Lee Ivy, Cross-Appellants v. Security Barge Lines, Inc., Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- Warnie Lee Ivy, Cross-Appellants v. Security Barge Lines, Inc., Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.