United States v. Harris

I conclude it was not prejudicial error for the military judge, following the appellant’s unsworn statement, to permit a prosecution witness to relate his opinion that appellant is untruthful and that he wouldn’t believe him under oath.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, 1969 (Rev.) (MCM), does not address the issue. Federal practice would permit consideration of such information by a federal judge. Members must have such information in order to arrive at an appropriate sentence.

In the first half of the twentieth century the federal and military justice systems had similar practices regarding…