Legal Opinion

United States v. Saunders

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

Decided November 30, 1978No. SPCM 13423PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

JONES, Senior Judge:

This case concerns the application of the rule requiring the convening authority to detail personally the military judge and counsel to each court-martial. The appellant alleges that the convening authority failed to follow the dictates of United States v. Newcomb, 5 M.J. 4 (C.M.A. 1978), by not personally detailing the military judge and counsel to his court-martial. Before we can reach the merits of that issue, we must first determine whether the rule of prospective application announced in United States v. Mixson, 5 M.J. 236 (C.M.A. 1978), makes…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Linkletter v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  4. Runkle v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  5. McClaughry v. DemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1902

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. United States v. MecklerU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
  2. United States v. CurryU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1983
  3. United States v. LivingstonU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1979
  4. United States v. ShearerU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
  5. United States v. ChoyU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1992

5 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