United States v. Condon

76 M.J. 436, 2017 CAAF LEXIS 799
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Condon. Read the opinion of the Court — 76 M.J. 435
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces·Decided July 19, 2017·No. No. 17-0392/AF·Published

Opinion

CCA 38765. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue raised by appellate defense counsel:

I. UPON REQUEST BY THE DEFENSE COUNSEL AND UTILIZING A DEFENSE PROPOSED INSTRUCTION, SHOULD THE MILITARY JUDGE HAVE PROVIDED THE MEMBERS WITH AN EXPLANATION OF THE TERM “INCAPABLE”?

And the following issue specified by the Court:

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN ADMITTING APPELLANT’S INVOCATION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN HIS AFOSI INTERVIEW AT TRIAL OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION, AND IF SO, WHETHER THAT ERROR WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

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

United States v. Condon, 76 M.J. 436, 2017 CAAF LEXIS 799 (Ark. 2017).

76 M.J. 436 (United States v. Condon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.