Legal Opinion · Dissent
United States v. Kossman
U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review
Decided January 26, 1993No. NMCM NO. 922486 MPublished
1DissentWelch, Judge
I dissent because I believe the judge erred when he refused to follow the President’s 27 June 1991 change to Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 707. Simply stated, the logic leading me to this conclusion is as follows:
a. The President intended to abolish the previously existing “90-day rule,” including the Burton presumption, when he promulgated the 1991 change to R.C.M. 707 (the “120-day rule”).
b. The new 120-day rule is a change in procedure which the President is authorized to make pursuant to Article 36, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 836.
c. The new rule does not…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Nixon v. Administrator of General ServicesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. BurtonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1971
- Charles N. Norris v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.