Spencer v. Banister

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a post- trial evidentiary hearing is not required if the record as a whole compellingly demonstrates the improbability of the facts alleged
• holding that the Court of Criminal Appeals exceeded its authority under Article 66(c), UCMJ, by purporting to resolve conflicting post-trial affidavits but con- cluding that the error caused no prejudice
• concluding that if “the appellate filings and the record as a whole ‘compellingly demonstrate’ the improbability of those facts, the Court may discount [appellant’s] factual assertions and decide the legal issue”
• holding a Court of Criminal Appeals errs “by making findings of facts partially based on post-trial submissions”
• holding additional proceedings under Article 66(f) to ascertain whether deficient performance occurred are warranted only if questions of material fact exist
• observing that a DuBay proceeding is unnecessary if the facts are uncontroverted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).