U.S. v. Lee, 50 M.J. 296

Military Justice Personnel: Staff Judge Advocate: Post-TrialRecommendation

1. recommendations of a military judge must be brought to the attention of the convening authority to assist him in considering action on the sentence

Military Justice Personnel: Convening Authority: Clemency

1. even though appellant’s offenses predated the effective date of Article 58b, thus not being subject to automatic forfeiture, the convening authority still had the power to remit or suspend any or all of the adjudged forfeitures as a matter of clemency
2. convening authority remains the accused’s best hope for sentence relief

Military Justice Personnel: Convening Authority: Action

1. even though appellant’s offenses predated the effective date of Article 58b, thus not being subject to automatic forfeiture, the convening authority still had the power to remit or suspend any or all of the adjudged forfeitures as a matter of clemency

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Generally

1. errors in post-trial processing create records that are not ready for appellate review and, when called to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeals, preferably should be returned to the convening authority because it is that official’s duty to consider what action is appropriate under the circumstances; otherwise, immediate corrective action should be taken at the Court of Criminal Appeals

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Post-trial Recommendation

1. recommendations of a military judge must be brought to the attention of the convening authority to assist him in considering action on the sentence

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Action

1. even though appellant’s offenses predated the effective date of Article 58b, thus not being subject to automatic forfeiture, the convening authority still had the power to remit or suspend any or all of the adjudged forfeitures as a matter of clemency
2. to prevail on an allegation of a post-trial error, an appellant must meet three requirements: (1) error must be raised at the Court of Criminal Appeals; (2) appellant must allege prejudice as a result of the error; and (3) appellant must show what he would do to resolve the error if given the opportunity

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Clemency

1. even though appellant’s offenses predated the effective date of Article 58b, thus not being subject to automatic forfeiture, the convening authority still had the power to remit or suspend any or all of the adjudged forfeitures as a matter of clemency
2. convening authority remains the accused’s best hope for sentence relief

Trial Stages: Appeals: Remedies › Generally

1. errors in post-trial processing create records that are not ready for appellate review and, when called to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeals, preferably should be returned to the convening authority because it is that official’s duty to consider what action is appropriate under the circumstances; otherwise, immediate corrective action should be taken at the Court of Criminal Appeals

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. to prevail on an allegation of a post-trial error, an appellant must meet three requirements: (1) error must be raised at the Court of Criminal Appeals; (2) appellant must allege prejudice as a result of the error; and (3) appellant must show what he would do to resolve the error if given the opportunity