Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Norris

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided March 24, 1967No. 19,688Published

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

  1. United States v. NelsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1953
  2. United States v. WaltersUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1954
  3. Ruch v. Rock IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  4. MacDonald v. AdamsDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API