United States v. Savage
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
1ConcurrenceCrawford, Judge
Appellant was represented by a senior defense counsel and an experienced civilian lawyer. The defense counsel made numerous motions but did not make a multiplicity motion until after the Government rested its ease. The failure to make a motion to combine specifications based on multiplicity before the Government’s case concluded, or to ask for a bill of particulars in order to avoid the implications of having such a motion *246granted, were valid tactical decisions by the defense.
Had the defense made an earlier multiplicity motion or requested a bill of particulars, the Government might have…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pinkerton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United States v. TetersUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1993
- United States v. LloydCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
- United States v. BrittonCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
- United States v. HarwoodCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.