Legal Opinion

United States v. Kimble

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided April 25, 1990No. ACM 27680PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION

KASTL, Senior Judge:

Under the Confrontation Clause, how far must the Government go to secure the presence of a witness before he or she can be considered “unavailable?" Such is the question before us today. Like the recent case of United States v. Ferdinand, 29 M.J. 164 (C.M.A.1989), we find that the Government did not go far enough to aggressively subpoena a necessary witness. At the same time — as in Ferdinand — we are convinced that admission of hearsay statements of the absent witness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We will address this issue and others. We affirm.

Factual…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. United States v. GrostefonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
  2. Morgan v. ForetichCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
  3. United States v. MiddletonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1981
  4. United States v. RemaiUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985
  5. United States v. CraigUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1989

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States v. KimbleUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1991
  2. United States v. SandersU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1991
  3. United States v. WagnerU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1992
  4. United States v. ZupkofsKaU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API