United States v. Grote

United States Court of Military Appeals

United States v. Grote

21 C.M.A. 519, 21 USCMA 519, 45 C.M.R. 293, 1972 CMA LEXIS 694, 1972 WL 14178

CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals

DecidedJuly 7, 1972

DocketNo. 24,969

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 C.M.A. 519 (United States v. Grote) 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. Grote, 21 C.M.A. 519, 21 USCMA 519, 45 C.M.R. 293, 1972 CMA LEXIS 694, 1972 WL 14178 (cma 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court

Duncan, Judge:

In the ease before us, the request for trial by military judge alone (Article 16, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 816).did not contain the name of the military judge when it was submitted by the accused. The request was submitted in blank.

In United States v Brown, 21 USCMA 516, 45 CMR 290 (1972), we held this omission to be a jurisdictional defect (United States v Dean, 20 USCMA 212, 43 CMR 52 (1970); United States v Rountree, 21 USCMA 62, 44 CMR 116 (1971)), and the proceedings null and void. McClaughry v Deming, 186 US 49, 46 L Ed 1049, 22 S Ct 786 (1902). We so hold in this case.

The decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Another trial may be ordered.

Chief Judge Darden concurs. Judge Quinn dissents.

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