Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Kiddo

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided July 29, 1983No. SPCM 18646Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWerner, Judge

I concur with the majority opinion as it relates to the findings, but dissent as to the sentence. The Court of Military Appeals *777has consistently held that where court members are importuned, as they were in this case, by argument of counsel to render a certain sentence in order to comply with command desires, policies or directives concerning military discipline, prejudicial error exists. United States v. Grady, 15 M.J. 275 (C.M.A.1983); United States v. Allen, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 317, 43 C.M.R. 157 (1971); United States v. Lackey, 8 U.S.C.M.A. 718, 25 C.M.R. 222 (1958); United States v. Davis, 8…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. FowleUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1956
  2. United States v. HawthorneUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1956
  3. United States v. GradyUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
  4. United States v. JohnsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1964
  5. United States v. EstradaUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1957

4 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