United States v. Bridges
U S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals
1ConcurrenceFelicetti, Judge
I believe it was error to admit Prosecution Exhibit 3 but that the error was harmless. I, therefore, concur in the result.
The relevance of Prosecution Exhibit 3 as rebuttal evidence is limited by the contents of the letter from Appellant’s father. The Government claims the father’s letter made the “unmistakable impression ... that Appellant had taken a round turn on his life and substantially improved his attitude and behavior while in confinement.” (Government Br. 6.) I disagree with the Government’s characterization. One must move well beyond the Government’s argument and further parse the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. WingartUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1988
- United States v. SaferiteCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2004
- United States v. HensonNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2003
- United States v. LoweNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2002