Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 4/4/1996

United States v. Meek

Citations

44 M.J. 1
1996 CAAF LEXIS 7
1996 WL 156679

How courts have described this case

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

holding that prosecutorial misconduct claim reviewed for prejudice
defining “[p]rosecutorial misconduct” as “action or inaction by a prosecutor in violation of some legal norm or standard, e.g., a constitutional provision, a statute, a Manual rule, or an applicable professional ethics canon”
defining “[p]rosecutorial misconduct” as “action or inaction by a prosecutor in violation of some legal norm or standard, e.g., a constitutional provision, a statute, a Manual rule, or an applicable professional ethics canon”
defining prosecutorial misconduct as an “action or inaction by a prosecutor in violation of some legal norm or standard, e.g., a constitutional provision, a statute, a Manual rule, or an applicable professional ethics canon”
“Several legal norms are violated when a trial counsel attempts to or unlawfully dissuades a defense witness from testifying at a court-martial.”
“[T]he reviewing court still considers the trial record as a whole to determine whether [the prosecuto- rial misconduct] was harmless under all the facts of a par- ticular case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cox, Crawford, Darden, Gierke, Sullivan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

52 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named United States v. Meek

7 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.