United States v. Dorris

76 M.J. 52, 2016 CAAF LEXIS 1047
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces·Decided December 22, 2016·No. No. 17-0048/AR·Published

Opinion

CCA 20140185. 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 issue specified by the Court:

WHETHER JUDGE HERRING, A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW, WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND EVEN IF HE WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER HIS SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN HIS NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER.

No 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. Dorris, 76 M.J. 52, 2016 CAAF LEXIS 1047 (Ark. 2016).

76 M.J. 52 (United States v. Dorris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.