Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Robinson

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided July 12, 1983No. SPCM 18763Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partO’Donnell, Senior Judge

I agree that Fretz’ statement inculpating the appellant was inadmissible because it was uncorroborated. I disagree, however, as to the disposition of the case, as I believe that the charges should be dismissed for insufficient evidence.

In my view, uncorroborated statements against penal interest inculpating an accused should be treated the same as uncorroborated statements of an accused. That is to say, not only are such statements inadmissible but, additionally, a conviction may not be based on them. This was the case under the corroboration rule in the 1951 Manual (see, e.g., United States…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. SmithUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1962
  2. United States v. Gilberto Pablo AlvarezCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
  3. United States v. McMurryUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API