FEDERAL · 10 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER IV—COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION
Art. 17. Jurisdiction of courts-martial in general
10 U.S.C. § 817
Title10 — Armed Forces
ChapterSUBCHAPTER IV—COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION
This text of 10 U.S.C. § 817 (Art. 17. Jurisdiction of courts-martial in general) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
10 U.S.C. § 817.
Text
(a)Each armed force has court-martial jurisdiction over all persons subject to this chapter. The exercise of jurisdiction by one armed force over personnel of another armed force shall be in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President.
(b)In all cases, departmental review after that by the officer with authority to convene a general court-martial for the command which held the trial, where that review is required under this chapter, shall be carried out by the department that includes the armed force of which the accused is a member.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Brown v. McNamara
387 F.2d 150 (Third Circuit, 1967)
James Roy Gosa v. J. A. Mayden, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Tallahassee, Florida
450 F.2d 753 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)
Brown v. United States
365 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1973)
United States v. Benton
7 M.J. 606 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1979)
Ralph L. Bell v. John J. Clark, Warden, Federal Reformatory, Petersburg, Virginia
437 F.2d 200 (Fourth Circuit, 1971)
United States v. Houston
17 C.M.A. 280 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1967)
United States v. Morgan
47 M.J. 27 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 1997)
United States v. Talty
17 M.J. 1127 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1984)
United States v. Garwood
16 M.J. 863 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1983)
United States v. Oliver
55 M.J. 763 (Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, 2001)
Bismullah Ex Rel. Bismullah v. Gates
551 F.3d 1068 (D.C. Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Johnson
23 C.M.A. 148 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1974)
United States v. Gonzales
46 M.J. 667 (Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, 1997)
Rushing, Brandon Gene
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011)
Source Credit
History
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 43.)
Editorial Notes
In subsection (a), the word "has" is substituted for the words "shall have".
In subsection (b), the word "after" is substituted for the words "subsequent to". The words "the provisions of" are omitted as surplusage. The words "department that includes the" are inserted before the words "armed force", since the review is carried out by the department and not by the armed force.
In subsection (b), the word "after" is substituted for the words "subsequent to". The words "the provisions of" are omitted as surplusage. The words "department that includes the" are inserted before the words "armed force", since the review is carried out by the department and not by the armed force.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
10 U.S.C. § 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/10/817.