Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Strangstalien

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided August 13, 1979No. 33,737; ACM 22089Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCook, Judge

I agree with the principal opinion that the laboratory report was admissible as a business record and that the chain of custody was adequately established. Any question as to its authenticity was waived by a failure to object at the trial level. United States v. Miller, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 49 C.M.R. 380 (1974); United States v. Evans, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 579, 45 C.M.R. 353 (1972). I must express my disagreement with the statement in the principal opinion that the analyst must be called upon the mere request of an accused. A requirement that the Government must produce a defense requested witness…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. TangpuzUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1978
  2. United States v. EvansUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1972
  3. United States v. WagnerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1978
  4. United States v. GladwinUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1964

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API