United States v. Connell
U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review
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
- United States v. JohnsonU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1976
- United States v. DuggerU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1976
- United States v. RankinU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1977
- United States v. JacoxU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1978
- United States v. SeiversU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.