United States v. O'Connor

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. O'Connor

76 M.J. 52, 2016 CAAF LEXIS 1041

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces

DecidedDecember 22, 2016

DocketNo. 17-0093/AR

StatusPublished

This text of 76 M.J. 52 (United States v. O'Connor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. O'Connor, 76 M.J. 52, 2016 CAAF LEXIS 1041 (Ark. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

CCA 20130853. 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 issues:

I. WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES PAULETTE V. BURTON AND JAMES W. HERRING AS CMCR JUDGES MEANT THAT THEY NO LONGER MET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

II. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE TRIBUNAL VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

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

CCA 20130853. 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 issues:

I. WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES PAULETTE V. BURTON AND JAMES W. HERRING AS CMCR JUDGES MEANT THAT THEY NO LONGER MET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

II. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE TRIBUNAL VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 M.J. 52, 2016 CAAF LEXIS 1041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-oconnor-armfor-2016.