United States v. Solorio
U S Coast Guard Court of Military Review
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
- United States v. TrottierUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1980
- Murray v. HaldemanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
- United States v. LockwoodUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
- United States v. PoduszczakU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1985
- United States v. BurrisU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1985