Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Tackett

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided April 29, 1966No. 19,076Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partQuinn, Chief Judge

The foundation for the majority’s determination that the accused were denied a fair trial rests upon two major conclusions both of which, in my opinion, are unsupported by the record of trial. The first conclusion is that there is a basic conflict between Tackett’s pretrial statement and the testimony of Lorentz and Pombert. The majority read Tackett’s statement as indicating he was not present at the scene throughout the incident, but rather that “he left [the car] and went back into the barracks” before Lorentz started his activities in the car. That is not the import of Tack-ett’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Delli Paoli v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. United States v. BornerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1953
  3. United States v. AndrewsUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1966
  4. United States v. OliverUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API