Legal Opinion

United States v. English

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided September 29, 1997No. 96-1063; Crim.App. No. 94 1776Published

1DissentCrawford, Judge

The issue in this case comes down to a matter of form versus substance. Appellant was not entitled to a sanity-board hearing under RCM 706, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.). Even assuming that appellant was entitled to an RCM 706 *220hearing, the mental examinations of appellant by Doctor Hammer and Lieutenant (Lt) Rogers were an adequate substitute. In any event, non-privileged information is not made privileged by virtue of the substitution. Appellant’s statements during his mental examinations were not privileged when made. The fact that appellant later requested an RCM 706…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. United States v. GrostefonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
  3. Jaffee v. RedmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. United States v. LovingCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1994
  5. United States v. NixUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1965

5 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