Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Sanders

U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review

Decided September 26, 1990No. NMCM 90 0148Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partByrne, Chief Judge

I concur that the defense counsel did not breach his duty of loyalty to his client, when acting as an officer of the court, he advised the military judge in an R.C.M. 802 Conference, that he had advised his client of the rescheduled trial date. (AOE II). I, however, do not believe it was necessary for the military judge to hold a formal “proceeding of record” to reset a trial date. The unique variables of military trial work, often conducted “on-the-road,” at sea, in war zones, etc., with many conflicting trial dates, warrants a more flexible, less rigid approach. This flexible approach is…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. AldridgeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API