Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Kreutzer

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided February 2, 2012No. 11-0231/ARPublished

1Dissent

ERDMANN, Judge,

with whom BAKER, Chief Judge, joins (dissenting):

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Kreutzer was not entitled to relief under Article 13, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 813, or Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 305, because he remained subject to lawful confinement. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) set aside all of the contested findings and Kreutzer’s entire sentence, not just the portion that applied to the death penalty. United States v. Kreutzer, 59 M.J. 773 (A.Ct.Crim.App.2004).1 Even though Kreutzer remained convicted…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. United States v. KreutzerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2005
  3. United States v. McCarthyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
  4. United States v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
  5. United States v. InongCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2003

9 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