United States v. Dixon

Based on United States v. Honeycutt, 29 MJ 416, 419 n. 5 (CMA 1990)(“[I]f the Government can rest its case upon a stipulation of fact, it is a ‘confessional stipulation.’ ”), and the discussion to RCM 811(e), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.), I agree with the holding of the majority that there was no confessional stipulation in this case requiring the judge to make an inquiry under United States v. Bertelson, 3 MJ 314 (CMA 1977). Based on the narrow holding in United States v. Watruba, 35 MJ 488 (CMA 1992), this Court should examine the continued validity of Bertelson.…