Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. McCallister

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

Decided August 15, 1987No. CM 448748Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Senior Judge RABY,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur with the opinion of my brethren that appellant was denied his right of speedy trial regarding the offense of absence without leave (AWOL) and that Article 13, UCMJ, was not violated by the less than model conditions of appellant’s pretrial confinement in the Cumberland County jail. I dissent, however, as to my brothers’ conclusion that appellant was not denied the right of speedy trial regarding the offense of wrongful appropriation.

At the outset let me say that this appears to me to be the most negligently processed case…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. United States v. McElyeaU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API