United States v. Barnack
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION
2Per curiam
The accused was tried by military judge alone. As pointed out in the individual defense counsel’s Goode response to the review of the staff judge advocate, the record discloses several comments by the prosecutor which exceeded acceptable *800bounds of fair advocacy, and affronted the spirit, if not the letter, of the ABA Standards, The Prosecution Function, §§ 5.8(b), 5.8(c), 5.9, and 6.1(a). See, United States v. Doctor, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 126, 21 C.M.R. 252 (1956). On balance, we also find it difficult to conclude that the trial counsel maintained the courteous and respectful attitude…
3Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. MontgomeryUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970
- United States v. DoctorUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1956
- United States v. MooreU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1976
4Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. NellumU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1985
- United States v. ThompsonU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1993
- United States v. BrownU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1984