United States Court of Military Appeals· 7/18/1983
United States v. Teeter
Citations
- 16 M.J. 68
- 1983 CMA LEXIS 19613
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- no obligation to provide accused two chances to defend on the merits through unsworn statement
- defendant may not use sentencing statement as a vehicle to challenge Court’s findings of guilt in litigated case
- permissible to exclude appellant’s alibi testimony during sworn statement and sentencing
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Cook, Everett, Fletcher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
41 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. LovingCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 1994-11-10· cited 366×
- United States v. GrayCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 1999-05-28· cited 105×
- United States v. MatthewsUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1983-10-11· cited 75×
- United States v. GrillCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 1998-06-01· cited 42×
- United States v. ZupancicUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1984-08-20· cited 41×
- United States v. HubbardUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1989-03-10· cited 24×
- United States v. SimoyAir Force Court of Criminal Appeals· 1996-11-08· cited 20×
- United States v. MansfieldU S Air Force Court of Military Review· 1991-11-21· cited 18×
- United States v. RathU.S. Army Court of Military Review· 1988-10-27· cited 17×
- United States v. ThomasNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals· 1995-06-23· cited 16×
- United States v. JeffersonUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1986-08-25· cited 16×
- United States v. MobleyU S Air Force Court of Military Review· 1989-07-18· cited 15×
- United States v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 2005-09-27· cited 14×
- United States v. TimmermanU S Air Force Court of Military Review· 1989-02-21· cited 14×
- United States v. DodsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1986-01-27· cited 13×
- United States v. AyalaU.S. Army Court of Military Review· 1986-06-23· cited 13×
- United States v. EbyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 1996-09-05· cited 12×
- United States v. HoskinsUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1993-03-11· cited 12×
- United States v. KingU.S. Army Court of Military Review· 1988-10-13· cited 10×
- United States v. Van SteenwykU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review· 1985-10-04· cited 9×
Cites
18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court· 1978-07-03· cited 5,026×
- Estelle v. SmithSupreme Court· 1981-05-18· cited 2,053×
- Whalen v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1980-04-16· cited 1,789×
- People v. AaronMichigan Supreme Court· 1980-11-24· cited 413×
- People v. WashingtonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1965-05-25· cited 351×
- United States v. BakerUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1983-01-03· cited 242×
- United States v. MiddletonUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1981-01-05· cited 162×
- Fare v. Joe R.California Supreme Court· 1980-07-03· cited 69×
- United States v. SalleyUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1980-08-18· cited 64×
- United States of America Ex Rel. James A. Stukes v. John P. Shovlin, SuperintendentThird Circuit· 1972-07-31· cited 35×
- United States v. WeaverUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1975-06-27· cited 31×
- United States v. WilsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1979-02-20· cited 30×
- United States V. TobitaUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1953-09-04· cited 24×
- United States v. ThomasUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1955-06-24· cited 21×
- United States v. TaylorUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1972-03-03· cited 20×
- United States v. TeeterU.S. Army Court of Military Review· 1981-11-25· cited 18×
- Robert E. Westberry v. Ward E. Murphy, Acting WardenFirst Circuit· 1976-05-21· cited 13×
- United States v. BrownUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1977-10-03· cited 12×
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.