United States v. Langston

United States Court of Military Appeals

United States v. Langston

22 C.M.A. 372

United States Court of Military Appeals·Decided June 22, 1973·No. No. 26,667; No. 26,669; No. 26,724; No. 26,798·Published

Opinions

[373] OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

The question presented for review in each of these cases is whether evidence of a previous Article 15 disciplinary proceeding at which correctional custody was imposed was inadmissible because the accused was unrepresented by appointed counsel at the proceeding. In United States v Shamel, 22 USCMA —, — CMR — (June 22, 1973), decided this date, we sustained the admissibility of the evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Military Review in each case is affirmed.

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

[373] OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

The question presented for review in each of these cases is whether evidence of a previous Article 15 disciplinary proceeding at which correctional custody was imposed was inadmissible because the accused was unrepresented by appointed counsel at the proceeding. In United States v Shamel, 22 USCMA —, — CMR — (June 22, 1973), decided this date, we sustained the admissibility of the evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Military Review in each case is affirmed.

United States v. Langston, 22 C.M.A. 372 (cma 1973).

Pincite

22 C.M.A. 372 (United States v. Langston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.