United States v. Stanley

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. Stanley

76 M.J. 69, 2017 CAAF LEXIS 49

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces·Decided January 23, 2017·No. No. 17-0118/AR·Published

Opinion

CCA 20150772. 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 ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGE CELT-NIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON.

II.WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES.

III.WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

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 20150772. 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 ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGE CELT-NIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON.

II.WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES.

III.WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

United States v. Stanley, 76 M.J. 69, 2017 CAAF LEXIS 49 (Ark. 2017).

Pincite

76 M.J. 69 (United States v. Stanley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.