Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Marcum

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided August 23, 2004No. 02-0944/AFPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrawford, Chief Judge

I. Defense Counsel’s Release of Appellant’s Unsworn Written Statement

I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defense counsel erred in releasing Appellant’s written statement. First, defense counsel’s declaration of intent to submit the exhibit as Appellant’s unsworn statement establishes that the statement was not privileged in the first place. Moreover, even assuming the statement was privileged, it is clear from the record that Appellant himself waived the privilege, as well as impliedly authorized defense counsel to waive the privilege and release the statement on Appellant’s…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Parker v. LevySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Lawrence v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  5. Swidler & Berlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998

7 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