United States v. McDowell

73 M.J. 287

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. McDowell. Read the opinion of the Court — 73 M.J. 457 →

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces·Decided April 11, 2014·No. No. 14-5005/AF·Published

Opinion

CCA 2013-28. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date on the following issues:

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE UNITED STATES’ PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND FOUND THE MILITARY JUDGE’S RULINGS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A JUDICIAL USURPATION OF POWER AND WERE NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF AN ERRONEOUS PRACTICE WHICH IS LIKELY TO RECUR.

WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD ORDER THE MILITARY JUDGE TO REVERSE HIS DECISIONS TO ORDER AN ORAL DEPOSITION OF B.B. AND TO RE-OPEN THE ARTICLE 32 PRETRIAL INVESTIGATION.

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

CCA 2013-28. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date on the following issues:

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE UNITED STATES’ PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND FOUND THE MILITARY JUDGE’S RULINGS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A JUDICIAL USURPATION OF POWER AND WERE NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF AN ERRONEOUS PRACTICE WHICH IS LIKELY TO RECUR.

WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD ORDER THE MILITARY JUDGE TO REVERSE HIS DECISIONS TO ORDER AN ORAL DEPOSITION OF B.B. AND TO RE-OPEN THE ARTICLE 32 PRETRIAL INVESTIGATION.

United States v. McDowell, 73 M.J. 287 (Ark. 2014).

Pincite

73 M.J. 287 (United States v. McDowell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.