United States v. Costigan
76 M.J. 65, 2017 CAAF LEXIS 26
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces
DecidedJanuary 17, 2017
DocketNo. 17-0084/AR
StatusPublished
This text of 76 M.J. 65 (United States v. Costigan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
United States v. Costigan, 76 M.J. 65, 2017 CAAF LEXIS 26 (Ark. 2017).
Opinion
CCA 20150052. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:
I. WHETHER, IN A COURT-MARTIAL TRIED BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE, THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO USE THE CHARGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT FOR MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 414 PURPOSES TO PROVE PROPENSITY TO COMMIT THE CHARGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.
II. WHETHER JUDGE PAULETTE V. BURTON AND JUDGE LARSS G. CELTNIEKS, JUDGES ON THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW, WERE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND EVEN IF THEY WERE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER THEIR SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN THEIR NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I only.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
76 M.J. 65, 2017 CAAF LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-costigan-armfor-2017.