United States v. Rose

64 M.J. 56, 2006 CAAF LEXIS 1221, 2006 WL 2788552
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces·Decided September 27, 2006·No. 05-0521/MC·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

The petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was granted on the following issues:

(1) WHETHER THE ORDER DIRECTING APPELLANT TO RECEIVE ANTHRAX VACCINE ADSORBED ON MARCH 29, 2000, WAS UNLAWFUL.

(2) WHETHER APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY REVIEW HAS BEEN DENIED.1

In light of this Court’s opinion in United States v. Kisala, 64 M.J. 50 (C.A.A.F.2006), we hold that the order directing Appellant to receive the anthrax vaccine was a lawful order which he disobeyed in violation of Article 90, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 890.2 Additionally, in light of our opinions in United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.2006), and United States v. Allison, 63 M.J. 365 (C.A.A.F.2006), this Court holds that even if Appellant was denied his due process right to speedy review and appeal, that error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and no relief is warranted.

Accordingly, the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

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

United States v. Rose, 64 M.J. 56, 2006 CAAF LEXIS 1221, 2006 WL 2788552 (Ark. 2006).

64 M.J. 56 (United States v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barker v. Wingo
407 U.S. 514 (Supreme Court, 1972)
United States v. Kisala
64 M.J. 50 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2006)
United States v. Allison
63 M.J. 365 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2006)
United States v. Moreno
63 M.J. 129 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2006)