CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic
U.S. v. Bolkan, 55 M.J. 425
Decided Sep 20, 2001 · No. 00-0673/AF · 2001 Term · Opinion (PDF)
Digested under 5 topics
Military Justice Personnel: Defense Function: Responsibilities
- the ethical responsibility to diligently represent an accused at trial requires a wide range of professional decisions, including what evidence to present and what arguments to make; however, the accused has control of the plea, pretrial agreement, questions as to forum, right to testify, and whether to appeal
Military Justice Personnel: Defense Function: Effective / Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
- when defense counsel’s advocacy falls short of that required to render effective assistance of counsel, the court will test for prejudice
Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Argument
- when the accused asks the sentencing authority to be allowed to remain on active duty, defense counsel errs by conceding the propriety of a punitive discharge
- assuming that defense counsel conceded the appropriateness of a punitive discharge and that the military judge erred in not conducting an inquiry into whether defense counsel’s argument reflected appellant’s desires, any error was harmless where: (1) defense counsel’s argument made a strategic decision recognizing that if the members must choose between confinement and a bad-conduct discharge, they should give appellant the punitive discharge; (2) defense counsel was realistic in her approach by accepting the force of adverse facts; and, (3) this was a case in which there was no reasonable probability of retention in the service
Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error
- assuming that defense counsel conceded the appropriateness of a punitive discharge and that the military judge erred in not conducting an inquiry into whether defense counsel’s argument reflected appellant’s desires, any error was harmless where: (1) defense counsel’s argument made a strategic decision recognizing that if the members must choose between confinement and a bad-conduct discharge, they should give appellant the punitive discharge; (2) defense counsel was realistic in her approach by accepting the force of adverse facts; and, (3) this was a case in which there was no reasonable probability of retention in the service
Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.
- when defense counsel’s advocacy falls short of that required to render effective assistance of counsel, the court will test for prejudice
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).