Legal Opinion
United States v. Quintanilla
Army Court of Criminal Appeals
Decided April 17, 2000No. ARMY 9601468PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
VOWELL, Judge:
The appellant was charged with a variety of sexual offenses involving five young men. A general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members convicted him, contrary to his pleas, of forcible sodomy of RW (a child under the age of sixteen), indecent assault upon CJ, and indecent acts upon Private (PVT) B, in violation of Articles 125 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 925 and 934 [hereinafter UCMJ].1 He was acquitted of a separate specification *841of forcible sodomy of JB and of two other specifications of indecent assault upon CJ…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Liteky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- United States v. GrostefonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
- Vasquez v. HillerySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Ward v. Village of MonroevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. QuintanillaCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2001
- United States v. QuintanillaCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2001
- United States v. QuintanillaCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2001
- United States v. Staff Sergeant TIMOTHY R. SLACKArmy Court of Criminal Appeals · 2017