United States v. Vazquez

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. Vazquez

71 M.J. 328

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces

DecidedMay 29, 2012

DocketNo. 12-5002/AF

StatusPublished

This text of 71 M.J. 328 (United States v. Vazquez) 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. Vazquez, 71 M.J. 328 (Ark. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

CCA 37563. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY HOLDING THAT APPELLEE WAS NOT AFFORDED A FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR TRIAL, AS GUARANTEED BY MILITARY DUE PROCESS AND THE UCMJ, WHEN TWO REPLACEMENT COURT MEMBERS DETAILED AFTER TRIAL ON THE MERITS HAD BEGUN WERE PRESENTED RECORDED EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED BEFORE THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 29, UCMJ, AND R.C.M. 805(d)(1).

II. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND WAIVER OR BY FAILING TO CONDUCT A PLAIN ERROR ANALYSIS; INSTEAD, THE COURT INCONGRUOUSLY FOUND THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF APPELLEE’S RIGHT TO MILITARY DUE PROCESS WAS PER SE PREJUDICIAL DESPITE DECLARING THAT THE ERROR WAS NOT STRUCTURAL.

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

CCA 37563. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY HOLDING THAT APPELLEE WAS NOT AFFORDED A FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR TRIAL, AS GUARANTEED BY MILITARY DUE PROCESS AND THE UCMJ, WHEN TWO REPLACEMENT COURT MEMBERS DETAILED AFTER TRIAL ON THE MERITS HAD BEGUN WERE PRESENTED RECORDED EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED BEFORE THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 29, UCMJ, AND R.C.M. 805(d)(1).

II. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND WAIVER OR BY FAILING TO CONDUCT A PLAIN ERROR ANALYSIS; INSTEAD, THE COURT INCONGRUOUSLY FOUND THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF APPELLEE’S RIGHT TO MILITARY DUE PROCESS WAS PER SE PREJUDICIAL DESPITE DECLARING THAT THE ERROR WAS NOT STRUCTURAL.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 M.J. 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-vazquez-armfor-2012.