CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic
U.S. v. Satterley, 55 M.J. 168
Decided Jun 18, 2001 · No. 00-0283/AF · 2001 Term · Opinion (PDF)
Digested under 1 topic
Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Unsworn Statements
- there may be other circumstances beyond legitimate surrebuttal which may warrant an additional unsworn statement; whether such circumstances exist in a particular case is a matter properly imparted to the sound discretion of the military judge
- where court members asked questions concerning the disposition of certain stolen property after appellant had completed an unsworn statement, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow appellant to make an additional limited statement, not sworn under oath or subject to cross-examination, to answer the questions: (1) appellant had already exercised his right to make an unsworn statement and elected not to particularly disclose the whereabouts of the stolen property; (2) appellant also had rested his case, both sides had made closing arguments, and the military judge had given final instructions to the court-martial panel members; (3) the military judge gave protective instructions that the requested information was not available and no adverse inference could be drawn against appellant; (4) whether the four computers were placed in off-base dumpsters, as asserted by appellant in his post-trial affidavit, raised a question of fact that could have been disputed by the prosecution, thus belatedly protracting this litigation; and (5) the military judge offered appellant reasonable alternatives [stipulation or sworn testimony] to promptly evidence the whereabouts of the stolen property
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).