Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 9/23/1998

United States v. Upshaw

Citations

49 M.J. 111
1998 CAAF LEXIS 787
1998 WL 880425

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that the burden was on the appellant to show prejudice when the staff judge advocate improperly limited the pool of eligible court members because he thought the accused was an E-6, when he was an E-5
stating that “where the convening authority’s motive is benign, systematic inclusion or exclusion may not be improper”
concluding that the burden was on the appellant to show prejudice when the staff judge advocate improperly limited the pool of eligible court members because he thought the accused was an E-6, when he was an E-5
finding that the appellant did not demonstrate prejudice from an administrative error that resulted in an improper limitation on the pool of potential members
finding that “improper motive” is an element of court stacking, a form of actual unlawful command influence”
allocating to the Appellant the burden “[w]here administrative mistakes occur in detailing court members”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cox, Crawford, Effron, Sullivan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named United States v. Upshaw

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.