Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Black

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided September 16, 1997No. 96-0121; Crim. App. No. 9400686Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSullivan, Judge

I disagree with the conclusion of the majority that the granted issue in this case is *151resolved by this Court’s holding in United States v. Solis, 46 MJ 81 (1997).1 For example, although Chief Judge Cox concurred in that case, his separate opinion possibly raises some doubt in my view about extinction of the “exculpatory-no” doctrine or its Manual equivalent. See para. 31c(6)(a), Part IV, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984.2 Nevertheless, I would resolve this case on the basis of my separate opinion in Solis, 46 MJ at 36 (concurring in the result), and the fact that appellant was…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. DavenportUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1980
  2. United States v. AronsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1957
  3. United States v. SolisCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
  4. United States v. WashingtonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958
  5. United States v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API