United States v. Kahmann

I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the findings and its conclusion that no material prejudice accrued from the Blunk error. However, I must respectfully dissent as to the majority’s decision to affirm the sentence. In my view, the evidence of a prior summary court-martial (SCM) did not comply with relevant statutory law, Presidential rule, binding judicial precedent, departmental regulation and service regulation. Despite the absence of objection, the evidence was inadmissible per se. Under the circumstances of this case, I conclude that the appellant suffered material prejudice in…