United States v. Pierce
United States Court of Military Appeals
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
- Bruno v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- United States v. SmithUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1962
- United States v. LucasUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1951
- United States v. WheelerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1967
- United States v. ClayUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1951
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.