United States Court of Military Appeals· 6/26/1989

United States v. Ohrt

Citations

28 M.J. 301
1989 CMA LEXIS 2391
1989 WL 67709

How courts have described this case

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

sentencing proceeding “not intended to be a vehicle to make an administrative decision about whether an accused should be retained or separated”
prohibiting direct testimony and inferences regarding the appropriateness of a punitive discharge
discussing a parallel requirement found in R.C.M. 1001(b)(5)(B) that “the opinion envisioned by R.C.M. 1001(b)(5) can only be expressed by a witness who has a rational basis for his conclusions, founded upon the accused’s service performance and character”
discussing a parallel requirement found in R.C.M. 1001(b)(5)(B) that “the opinion envisioned by R.C.M. 1001(b)(5) can only be expressed by a witness who has a rational basis for his conclusions, founded upon the accused’s service performance and character”
“The question of appropriateness of punishment is one which must be decided by the court-martial; it cannot be usurped by a witness.”
“The question of appropriateness of punishment is one which must be decided by the court-martial; it cannot be usurped by a witness.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cox, Everett, Sullivan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named United States v. Ohrt

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

United States v. Ohrt
U S Air Force Court of Military Review· 1988-04-27· cited 7×

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.