Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Hutchison

U S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals

Decided June 27, 2001No. CGCMG 0132; Docket No. 1090Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKantor, Judge

I concur with the majority as to its resolution of the initially assigned errors. However, I respectfully dissent from certain portions of the majority and concurring opinions addressing the supplemental assignment of error asserting that the Government failed to comply with Article 2-B-4 of the then-current MJM, Commandant Instruction M5810.1C, thus violating Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 201(d)’s policy against second trials. Despite finding that there was no double jeopardy issue; that the Coast Guard had jurisdiction to try the Appellant; and that there was “no other basis that warrants…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Alabama v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. United States v. CaceresSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. United States v. ClaxtonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1991
  5. United States v. SloanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1992

4 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