United States v. Easton

I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that “manifest necessity” justified the convening authority’s withdrawal of charges. I do not agree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that Article 44(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was constitutionally applied in this case and therefore respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion.1

As recognized by the majority, this court has long held that the Bill of Rights applies to servicemembers except for those that are “expressly or by necessary implication inapplicable.” Courtney…