Sei sulla pagina 1di 113
 
U.S. v. GrayUnited States, Appelleev.Ronald A. GRAY, Specialist Four U.S. Army, Appellant   No. 93-7001CMR No. 8800807  United States Court of Appeals for the Armed ForcesArgued March 7, 1995Reargued December 17, 1996Decided May 28, 1999
SULLIVAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which CRAWFORD and GIERKE, JJ., joined. EFFRON, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which COX, C.J., joined.
 Â CounselFor Appellant: Captain Silas R. Deroma (argued and reargued) and Major MichaelA. Egan (reargued); Colonel Stephen D. Smith, Colonel John T. Phelps II, andCaptain Christopher W. Royer (on brief); Captain Michael E. Hatch and CaptainMichael E. Smith.For Appellee: Captain John G. Giovannelli (argued) and Major Lyle D. Jentzer andCaptain Steven H. Levin (reargued); Colonel John M. Smith, Lieutenant James L.Pohl, Lieutenant Colonel Eva M. Novak, and Captain Michael E. Mulligan (on brief); Colonel Dayton M. Cramer, Major Joseph C. Swetnam, and Captain Glenn L.Kirschner.Military Judge: Raymond C. McRorie
 
Â
THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION BEFOREFINAL PUBLICATION.
Index of IssuesService – Connection (Page 16)Review in favorem vitae-application of (Page 17)II Unanimous vote and review in favorem vitae by CCA in capital case (Page 18)III Denial of Petition for New Trial based on organic brain damage (Page 19)IV Death sentence invalid because panel misinformed about mental condition attime of offenses (Page 25)V Denial of Psychiatric Expert (Page 29)VI Failure of DC(1) to investigate mitigating circumstances (Page 35)(2) to challenge competence of defense experts (Page 38)(3) to present an available defense (Page 39)(4) to present adequate case on sentencing (Page 39)VII Denial of Funding Motion (Page 40)VIII Denial of Funding by TJAG in this case but not in 2 others - effect of (Page 40)IX TJAG Policy Memo re funding - validity of (Page 40)X Use of statements made during state-court guilty-plea inquiry as violating FifthAmendment (Page 51)XI Use of those statements as violation of civilian plea agreement (Page 56)XII CMR treatment of issue regarding use of statements – validity (violation of 
 
Article 31) (Page 57)XIII Failure of counsel to limit use of statements to use in civilian court (Page 58)XIV Prejudicial pretrial publicity (Page 62)XV Election of Forum - knowing and intelligent (Page 67)XVI Denial of investigative assistance (Page 69)XVII Challenge for cause - MSG McCormick (Page 75)XVIII Challenge for Cause - CSM Woods (Page 75)XIX Abuse of military’s peremptory – challenge procedure (Page 77)XX Failure to comply with Batson rule (Page 78)XXI Peremptory challenge based on scruples against death penalty (Page 78)XXII Gruesome photographs (page 86)XXIII Nondisclosure of exculpatory information (Registered Source) (Page 87)XXIV Denial of mistrial based on comment on appellant’s silence (Page 95)XXV Exclusion at sentencing of evidence on appellant’s background (Page 97)XXVI Multiplicity of larceny and burglary (Page 106)XXVII Double counting of aggravating factors (Page 107)XXVIII Instruction on meaning of "substantially outweighed" (Page 113)XXIX No statement that finding regarding "substantially outweighed" wasunanimous (Page 114)XXX Decision on "substantially outweighed" as requiring finding beyond areasonable doubt (Page 115)XXXI No instruction on absolute discretion not to impose death sentence (Page 115)XXXII Validity of aggravating factor regarding pain and suffering (RCM 1004(c)(7)(I)) (Page 117)XXXIII Deliberating on sentence during recess (Page 119)

Premia la tua curiosità

Tutto ciò che desideri leggere.
Sempre. Ovunque. Su qualsiasi dispositivo.
Nessun impegno. Annulla in qualsiasi momento.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505