United States v. Saunders
U.S. Army Court of Military Review
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
- Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Linkletter v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Runkle v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- McClaughry v. DemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- United States v. MecklerU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
- United States v. CurryU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1983
- United States v. LivingstonU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1979
- United States v. ShearerU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1978
- United States v. ChoyU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.