Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Vela

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided July 18, 2012No. 12-0194/ARPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ERDMANN, Judge, with whom RYAN, Judge,

joins (concurring in part and dissenting in part):

I concur with the majority’s determination that the military judge did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the charges or to disqualify trial counsel based on Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that the evidence in this case is legally sufficient to convict Vela under Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2006), of wrongfully placing an AK-47 on the body of Ghani Nasr Khu-dayyer Al-Janabi. While…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kastigar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. United States v. PritchettUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1990
  3. United States v. ShearerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1996
  4. United States v. SimmonsCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2006
  5. United States v. GosselinCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2006

1 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