United States v. Norris
United States Court of Military Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partQuinn, Chief Judge
The majority’s determination that the transcript of Lieutenant Grant’s testimony was inadmissible is, in my opinion, contrary to law and sound judicial procedure. It is also unjustified by the facts because it is manifest that only irrelevant and immaterial matter was omitted from the transcript.
As to judicial precedent and sound practice, Ruch v Rock Island, 97 US 693, 694-695, 24 L ed 1101 (1878), is directly in point. There, two witnesses at a trial in the Federal district court in Chicago testified by deposition. A verdict was entered for the defendant, but it was set aside and a new…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. NelsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1953
- United States v. WaltersUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1954
- Ruch v. Rock IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- MacDonald v. AdamsDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1941