Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Connell

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

Decided June 17, 1980No. NCM 79 1763Published

1ConcurrenceBaum, Senior Judge

Since I agree with Judge Michel’s determination that the pleas of guilty in this case were improvident, I see no need to address assignments of error I and II and, accordingly, would refrain from addressing them. In passing, however, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile what I consider to be diametrically opposed arguments expressed by appellate defense counsel. I can understand how counsel could raise either one of these assignments — alone—but I cannot understand how they both can be argued with any seriousness.

In assignment of error III appellant has challenged the legality…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. JohnsonU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1976
  2. United States v. DuggerU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1976
  3. United States v. RankinU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1977
  4. United States v. JacoxU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1978
  5. United States v. SeiversU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API