Search for: "IN THE MATTER OF M.J."
Results 241 - 260
of 317
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jan 2009, 12:14 pm
In little more than two years, the five-member Effron Court has produced six major cases concerning court-martial or military appellate court jurisdiction: Lopez de Victoria, 66 M.J. 67; Denedo, 66 M.J. 114; Adams, 66 M.J. 255; Hart, 66 M.J. 273; Wuterich, 67 M.J. 63; Rodriguez, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0900/MC. [read post]
3 Jan 2009, 6:08 am
Wuterich, 66 M.J. 685 (N-M. [read post]
2 Jan 2009, 2:58 pm
Austin, __ M.J. ___, Misc. [read post]
14 Dec 2008, 8:42 pm
Tuscan, __ M.J. ___, No. 1281 (C.G. [read post]
13 Dec 2008, 2:54 am
Ginn, 47 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F. 1997). [read post]
28 Nov 2008, 8:33 pm
Coker, __ M.J. ___, No. 1280 (C.G. [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 11:54 am
Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984). [read post]
1 Oct 2008, 9:10 pm
Straight, 42 M.J. 244 (C.A.A.F. 1995). [read post]
18 Sep 2008, 11:49 pm
Clayton, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-0417/AR (C.A.A.F. [read post]
6 Sep 2008, 10:03 pm
Delarosa, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-0390/NA (C.A.A.F. [read post]
24 Aug 2008, 9:18 am
Bush, __ M.J. ___, No. [read post]
2 Aug 2008, 9:51 pm
Harris, __ M.J. ___, No. [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 2:47 pm
BERTELSON, 3 M.J. 314 (C.M.A. 1977).ASSUMING, ARGUENDO, THAT COUNSEL MAY CONCEDE GUILT AS A TACTICAL MATTER AFTER CONSULTATION BUT WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED, DOES THE RECORD IN THE PRESENT CASE SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT COUNSEL CONSULTED WITH APPELLANT PRIOR TO MAKING SUCH A CONCESSION? [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 9:32 pm
United States, 64 M.J. 232 (C.A.A.F. 2006). [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 6:05 pm
(Whether the prosecution would and would want to do that is another matter.) [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 11:03 pm
Harman, __ M.J. ___, No. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 9:56 pm
Thompson, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-0334/MC (C.A.A.F. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 3:13 pm
The plaintiff, M.J. [read post]
24 Jun 2008, 7:04 pm
United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008). [read post]
19 Jun 2008, 3:16 pm
As a matter of law, Trujillo, Florio, and Jerilyn Quon had a reasonable expectation that the Department would not review their messages absent consent from either a sender or recipient of the text messages. [read post]
