CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic

U.S. v. Stephens, 56 M.J. 391

Decided Apr 10, 2002 · No. 01-0750/MC · 2002 Term · Opinion (PDF)

Digested under 2 topics

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Post-trial Submissions

  1. speculation concerning the consideration of post-trial matters simply cannot be tolerated in this important area of command prerogative; court will not guess as to whether clemency matters prepared by the defense counsel were attached to the recommendation or otherwise considered by the convening authority

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Action

  1. neither the UCMJ nor the Rules for Courts-Martial require the convening authority to state in the final action what materials were reviewed in reaching a final decision; thus court declines to hold that a document embodying the convening authority’s final action is defective simply because it refers to the SJA’s recommendation without also referring to attachments, such as an addendum or clemency materials
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).