United States v. Davis

9 C.M.A. 614, 9 USCMA 614, 26 C.M.R. 394, 1958 CMA LEXIS 454, 1958 WL 3388
CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals
DecidedSeptember 19, 1958
DocketNo. 11,761
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 C.M.A. 614 (United States v. Davis) 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. Davis, 9 C.M.A. 614, 9 USCMA 614, 26 C.M.R. 394, 1958 CMA LEXIS 454, 1958 WL 3388 (cma 1958).

Opinions

Opinion of the Court

Homer Ferguson, Judge:

The accused, at his trial for larceny, expressly declined the services of the certified defense counsel appointed to represent him and was, at his request, represented at trial by individual military counsel who was not certified by The Judge Advocate General and who did not possess the legal qualifications enumerated in Article 27(b) (1) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 827. It is contended that the law officer erred to the substantial prejudice of the accused in allowing an unqualified “counsel” to represent the accused.

As was clearly enunciated in United States v Kraskouskas, 9 USCMA 607, 26 CMR 387, and for the reasons there set forth, an accused, even at his own insistence, may not be permitted lay representation before a general court-martial.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. A rehearing may be ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

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

Related

Soriano v. Hosken
9 M.J. 221 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 C.M.A. 614, 9 USCMA 614, 26 C.M.R. 394, 1958 CMA LEXIS 454, 1958 WL 3388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-davis-cma-1958.