Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Jones

U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review

Decided December 31, 1981No. NMCM 80 2648Published

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

  1. United States v. PaleniusUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
  2. United States v. VaraUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958
  3. United States v. WiseUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1955
  4. United States v. HarrisonU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1978
  5. United States v. WalkerU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API