Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Solorio

U S Coast Guard Court of Military Review

Decided September 24, 1985No. Misc. Docket 004-85Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Judge BRIDGMAN

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the Court’s holding that the trial judge erred, as a matter of law, in determining the impact of this offense on the morale and discipline of the Coast Guard in Juneau and that a determination should have been made as to the impact, if any, on the accused’s present command and the Coast Guard community as a whole. In addition to the matters discussed in the majority opinion, I note that the judge’s essential findings may have been based on an erroneous standard, where the judge stated “the impact of the alleged offenses ...…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. TrottierUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1980
  2. Murray v. HaldemanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
  3. United States v. LockwoodUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
  4. United States v. PoduszczakU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1985
  5. United States v. BurrisU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API