Property · MBE-tested

UNITED STATES, Appellee v. HOWARD M. WILKINS, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant; UNITED STATES, Appellee v. MORRIS N. TURNER, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant; UNITED STATES, Appellee v. BILLY J. POUNCIL, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant; UNITED STATES, Appellee v. LUKE W. CLARK, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

22 C.M.A. 33446 C.M.R. 334·United States Court of Military Appeals·1973

Judge Duncan dissents for the . reasons set forth in his separate opinion in United States v Henry, 22 USCMA 328, 46 CMR 328 (June 8, 1973).

Source

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

UNITED STATES, Appellee v HOWARD M. WILKINS, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant UNITED STATES, Appellee v MORRIS N. TURNER, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant UNITED STATES, Appellee v BILLY J. POUNCIL, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant UNITED STATES, Appellee v LUKE W. CLARK, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant No. 26,173 No. 26,516 No. 26,602 No. 26,775 22 USCMA 334, 46 CMR 334 June 8, 1973 On the pleadings for Appellants, Accused, were Colonel Arnold I. Melnick, Captain J. Vincent Aprile, II, (Nos. 26,173 and 26,775), Captain John D. Lanoue (Nos. 26,173 and 26,775), Colonel Joseph E, Donahue (No. 26,516), Captain James K. Stewart (No. 26,602), and Captain Denis E. Hynes (No. 26,602). On the pleadings for Appellee, United States, were Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Captain Thomas G. McMahon (No. 26,173), Captain Richard L. Menson (Nos. 26,713 and 26,602), Captain Stan L. Spangler (Nos. 26,173 and 26,775), Major Thomas P. Burns, III, (Nos. 26,516 and 26,775), Captain Glenn R. Bonard (No. 26,516), Captain Lawrence R. Ehrhard (No. 26602), Captain Merle F. Wilberding (No. 26,602), and Captain James F. Motley (No. 26,775). [MAJORITY — Per Curiam:] Opinion of the Court Per Curiam: We granted review in these cases to determine whether evidence of a previous conviction by special court-martial was properly admitted because the appellants were not represented at such special courts-martial by a professional lawyer. Chief Judge Dar-den and Judge Quinn, for the reasons set forth in their separate opinions in United States v Alderman, 22 USCMA 298, 46 CMR 298 (May 25, 1973), would hold that such evidence is admissible. Accordingly, the decision of the U. S. Army Court of Military Review in each of these cases is affirmed. Judge Duncan dissents for the . reasons set forth in his separate opinion in United States v Henry, 22 USCMA 328, 46 CMR 328 (June 8, 1973).

Opinion