United States v. Radford
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION
MILES, Judge:
This case raises delicate questions about the duties of trial defense counsel. Appellate defense counsel argue that the trial defense counsel should have been excused because of ethical constraints which precluded him from aiding testimony known to him to be false. We disagree, and hold that the accused received the effective assistance of counsel throughout the proceedings. We also hold that the military judge did not err to the prejudice of the accused by commenting that the introduction of alibi evidence necessitated a delay.
Contrary to his pleas, accused was convicted…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. RivasUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
- Jacqueline Lowery v. Harold J. Cardwell, Superintendent, Arizona State PrisonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- United States v. DavisUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
- State v. HendersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1970
- Thornton v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. RadfordUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
- United States v. RobertsU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1985
- United States v. JonesU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1982
- United States v. RadfordUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982