United States v. Thomas

76 M.J. 120, 2017 CAAF LEXIS 75
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces·Decided February 2, 2017·No. No. 17-0133/AR·Published

Opinion

CCA 20150269. 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 issue:

WHETHER JUDGES CELTNIEKS AND BURTON, JUDGES ON THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW, WERE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND EVEN IF THEY WERE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER THEIR SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN THEIR NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS PRINCIPAL OFFICERS.

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

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

United States v. Thomas, 76 M.J. 120, 2017 CAAF LEXIS 75 (Ark. 2017).

76 M.J. 120 (United States v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.