Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Starr

United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals

Decided July 16, 1999No. ACM S29510Published

1DissentSpisak, J.

The majority’s determination that “held for trial” is synonymous with pretrial restraint fails to heed our superior court’s holdings in similar cases. While acknowledging that the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) determined that “[ajpplieation of Article 13 is not limited to pre-trial confinees, but applies to all military members ‘held for trial,’ ” United States v. Combs, 47 M.J. 330, 333 (1997), the majority ignores this guidance because USCAAF failed to specifically define “held for trial.” This we may not do. Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(e); United…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. United States v. PalmiterUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985
  3. United States v. CruzUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1987
  4. United States v. AllberyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1996
  5. United States v. JonesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1987

6 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