United States v. Brown

United States Court of Military Appeals

United States v. Brown

22 C.M.A. 331

CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 1973

DocketNo. 26,155; No. 26,253; No. 26,319; No. 26,379; No. 26,391; No. 26,407; No. 26,587; No. 26,639; No. 26,827

StatusPublished

This text of 22 C.M.A. 331 (United States v. Brown) 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. Brown, 22 C.M.A. 331 (cma 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Evidence of previous conviction by summary courts-martial resulting in a sentence to confinement was considered against the appellants on sentencing during trial or by the convening authority before his action in each of these cases. United States v Alderman, 22 USCMA 298, 46 CMR 298 (May 25, 1973) prohibits the use of such evidence. A fair risk exists that the evidence of such previous conviction was disadvantageous to each of the accused. Accordingly, we return the records of trial to the Judge Advocates General-of the respective services for submission to a Court of Military Review for further proceedings consistent with our disposition in United States v Aiderman, supra.

Chief Judge Darden dissents for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in United States v Alderman, supra.

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

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Evidence of previous conviction by summary courts-martial resulting in a sentence to confinement was considered against the appellants on sentencing during trial or by the convening authority before his action in each of these cases. United States v Alderman, 22 USCMA 298, 46 CMR 298 (May 25, 1973) prohibits the use of such evidence. A fair risk exists that the evidence of such previous conviction was disadvantageous to each of the accused. Accordingly, we return the records of trial to the Judge Advocates General-of the respective services for submission to a Court of Military Review for further proceedings consistent with our disposition in United States v Aiderman, supra.

Chief Judge Darden dissents for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in United States v Alderman, supra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 C.M.A. 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-brown-cma-1973.