United States v. Acosta

United States Court of Military Appeals

United States v. Acosta

22 C.M.A. 347

CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 1973

DocketNo. 26,737

StatusPublished

This text of 22 C.M.A. 347 (United States v. Acosta) 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

United States v. Acosta, 22 C.M.A. 347 (cma 1973).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Under attack is the admissibility of evidence of a previous conviction by summary court, at which the accused was not sentenced to confinement, and of a previous conviction by special court-martial, at which the accused allegedly was represented by appointed counsel who was not a professional lawyer in the civilian sense. For the reasons set out in the separate opinions of Chief Judge Darden and

Judge Quinn in United States v Alderman, 22 USCMA 298, 46 CMR 298 (May 25, 1973), we sustain the admission of the evidence. The decision of the Court of Military Review is affirmed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Under attack is the admissibility of evidence of a previous conviction by summary court, at which the accused was not sentenced to confinement, and of a previous conviction by special court-martial, at which the accused allegedly was represented by appointed counsel who was not a professional lawyer in the civilian sense. For the reasons set out in the separate opinions of Chief Judge Darden and

Judge Quinn in United States v Alderman, 22 USCMA 298, 46 CMR 298 (May 25, 1973), we sustain the admission of the evidence. The decision of the Court of Military Review is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 C.M.A. 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-acosta-cma-1973.