United States v. Jones
U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review
1DissentBaum, Senior Judge
I cannot concur with the majority’s action which finds no prejudicial error and thereby rejects appellant’s assertion that he was prejudicially denied effective post-trial assistance of counsel. I believe appellant did not receive adequate representation after trial as guaranteed to him in United States v. Palenius, 2 M.J. 86 (CMA 1977). For this reason, I would set aside the convening authority’s action and return the record of trial for a new action after appellant is afforded the opportunity to submit to the convening authority such matters as he deems appropriate, with the advice and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. PaleniusUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
- United States v. VaraUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958
- United States v. WiseUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1955
- United States v. HarrisonU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1978
- United States v. WalkerU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1979