Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Pierce

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided February 20, 1970No. 22,031Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFesguson, Judge

I concur in part and dissent in part.

While I agree with my brothers’ ultimate disposition of the accused’s claim that he was denied a speedy trial, I disassociate myself from their reasoning. Since the issue was not raised at trial, the record does not disclose why the accused was initially confined for thirty-five days and then released without charges being pre*229ferred.1 Nor is there any explanation for the Government’s delay in preferring charges for a simple absence-without-leave offense, until three hundred sixty-three days after the accused’s return to military control. To reason, as my…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Bruno v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  2. United States v. SmithUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1962
  3. United States v. LucasUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1951
  4. United States v. WheelerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1967
  5. United States v. ClayUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1951

10 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