United States v. Trejo
76 M.J. 40, 2016 CAAF LEXIS 979
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces
DecidedDecember 8, 2016
DocketNo. 17-0066/AR
StatusPublished
This text of 76 M.J. 40 (United States v. Trejo) 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. Trejo, 76 M.J. 40, 2016 CAAF LEXIS 979 (Ark. 2016).
Opinion
CCA 20160479. 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 JUDGES CELT-NIEKS AND BURTON.
II.WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGES CELTNIEKS AND BURTON DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
76 M.J. 40, 2016 CAAF LEXIS 979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-trejo-armfor-2016.