United States v. Endsley
United States Court of Military Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court
HomeR FeRGüson, Judge:
Accused, after entering not guilty pleas, stands convicted by general court-martial of twenty specifications, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921, and intermediate appellate bodies have affirmed.
We granted accused’s petition for review to determine whether or not the law officer committed prejudicial error by advising the accused in open court of his right to testify or to remain silent. The facts, insofar as pertinent to this appeal, are as follows: After the prosecution had rested its case, the following…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. RinehartUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1957
- United States v. HowardUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1954
- United States v. AllinderUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1958
3Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. GordonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1963
- United States v. RichardsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1972
- United States v. WilliamsUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970
- United States v. WalkerU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1978
- United States v. BrickeyU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1980
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.