Kidd v. United States

1 M.J. 302, 1975 CMA LEXIS 600
CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals
DecidedNovember 14, 1975
DocketMiscellaneous Docket No. 75-70
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 1 M.J. 302 (Kidd v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Military Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kidd v. United States, 1 M.J. 302, 1975 CMA LEXIS 600 (cma 1975).

Opinion

On June 27, 1975, we set aside the findings and the sentence in petitioner’s case and authorized a rehearing on the basis of our decision in United States v. Holland, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 442, 50 C.M.R. 461, 1 M.J. 58 (1975). United States v. Kidd, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 442, 50 C.M.R. 461, 1 M.J. 58 (1975). A rehearing has been ordered by the convening authority and initial sessions of a court-martial pursuant to Article 39(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 839(a), were held in October 9 and 10, 1975. In his petition, petitioner has informed us that trial is now scheduled for November 10, 1975. We have confirmed telephonically that trial is still scheduled for that date. In view of the impending trial date, we need not act upon petitioner’s request that we order the trial judge to proceed with the trial.1

More than four months has elapsed since we rendered our decision. Since June 2, 1975, petitioner has been on excess leave in Florida, apparently having served most, if not all, of the confinement at hard labor approved as a result of his initial trial. While he has apparently not been placed in pretrial confinement pending the rehearing, and thus the 90-day rule of United States v. Burton, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 112, 44 C.M.R. 166 (1971), is not applicable, this does not in any way lessen the need for a speedy trial or retrial. Moreover, requiring an accused to return to Fort Leavenworth from Florida for the trial and then delay the trial with frivolous motions2 is unconscionable and unprofessional. See Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Petition for Extraordinary Relief is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Meyer
14 M.J. 935 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1982)
United States v. Burrell
13 M.J. 437 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1982)
United States v. Cabatic
7 M.J. 438 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1979)
United States v. Trasp
1 M.J. 1059 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1976)
United States v. Avery
2 M.J. 1004 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1976)
United States v. Powell
2 M.J. 6 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1976)
United States v. Herndon
2 M.J. 875 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 M.J. 302, 1975 CMA LEXIS 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kidd-v-united-states-cma-1975.