Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Wright

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided August 31, 2000No. 99-0318/APublished

1ConcurrenceSullivan, Judge

I would hold that Fed.R.Evid. 413, as incorporated by Mil.R.Evid. 1102, was applicable to appellant’s court-martial in March of 1997 and it was constitutional. See United States v. Enjady, 134 F.3d 1427, 1430 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that Fed.R.Evid. 413 is facially constitutional because Fed.R.Evid. 403 balancing test applies), citing Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352-53, 110 S.Ct. 668, 107 L.Ed.2d 708 (1990); accord United States v. Castillo, 140 F.3d 874, 881-83 (10th Cir.1998). However, I agree with Judge Gierke in his view that evidence of conduct that occurs after the charged…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Dowling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. United States v. CastilloCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
  3. United States v. Kerry Neil EnjadyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
  4. United States v. Colon-AngueiraUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
  5. United States v. DorseyUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1993

2 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