- a confessional stipulation will be rejected when inquiry reveals the existence of an agreement not to raise any defenses or motions; such an agreement defeats the purposes of Article 45(a), UCMJ, and would allow the government to avoid Congressional enactment while reaping the benefits of the pretrial agreement
- a confessional stipulation entered as part of a pretrial agreement which promised not to call witnesses or present evidence on the accused’s behalf during the case on the merits violates the prohibitions of United States v. Bertelson, 3 MJ 314 (CMA 1977)
- (1999) (even though confessional stipulation entered as part of a pretrial agreement which promised not to call witnesses or present evidence on the accused’s behalf during the case on the merits violates the prohibitions of United States v. Bertelson, 3 MJ 314 (CMA 1977), the appellant was not denied due process where the military judge conducted all the inquiries and secured all the responses required by Article 45(a), UCMJ, and Rule for Courts-Martial 910(a))
CAAF Opinion Digest · IV.B.4 · Merits
Confessional Stipulations
1 digested opinion, 1999–1999 Terms
1999
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 · digest page IVB4 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).