Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Gilbride

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided April 26, 2002No. 01-0503/AFPublished

1ConcurrenceSullivan, Senior Judge

I agree that Mil.R.Evid. 106 is not at issue in this case. See United States v. Rodriguez, *43156 MJ 336, 343 (2002) (Sullivan, S. J., concurring in part and in the result); United States v. Goldwire, 55 MJ 139, 147 (2001) (Sullivan, J., concurring in the result). It applies only when a writing or recorded statement is introduced at trial. See United States v. Ramirez-Perez, 166 F.3d 1106, 1112-13 (11th Cir.1999). The Government in this case only evidenced appellant’s oral admission and confessions to police officers and, accordingly, Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2) is the pertinent evidentiary rule.

Mil.R.Evi…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2002
  2. United States v. GoldwireCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2001
  3. United States v. Ramirez-PerezCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API