Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Manuel

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided September 29, 1995No. 94-5008; CMR No. 30025Published

1DissentCrawford, Judge

32. If the majority want to hold that they will not permit a prosecution based upon a urinalysis where the sample, which has tested positive on three occasions, has been lost through no bad faith by the Government, they should simply say so. The majority (1) apply facts not in the record, (2) reject the history behind the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Manual for Courts-Martial, (3) reject precedent, and (4) fail to apply a harmless-error analysis.

33. It is untenable when a chain of custody is intact, a sample is tested positive three times, and then the sample is lost without any bad…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. California v. TrombettaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Arizona v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Jenkins v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. United States v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981

30 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