Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Savage

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided May 3, 1999No. 98-0273/ARPublished

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

  1. Pinkerton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. United States v. TetersUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1993
  3. United States v. LloydCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
  4. United States v. BrittonCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
  5. United States v. HarwoodCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997

3 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