Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Austin

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided September 24, 1992No. 66,576; CM 8801708Published

1ConcurrenceCrawford, Judge

I concur in part and in the result. I believe the military judge erred in allowing the transcript of the victim’s pretrial investigation testimony to be given to the court members for use during their deliberations because he also allowed the Government to publish part of the same transcript to the panel by reading it. I agree that appellant was prejudiced in this case because the victim’s unrecanted testimony was before the members in a detailed, favored, and indeed duplicate form. The majority opinion applies a per se abuse-of-discretion standard when transcripts of pretrial-investigation…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. KraushaarSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
  2. United States v. Bernard G. Decoito and Francisco Tagalicod, Jr., United States of America v. Bernard G. DecoitoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
  3. Ascherman v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API