# United States v. Thomas

> U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · October 13, 1993 · 39 M.J. 626

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8650999

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES v. Joseph L. THOMAS, 376 64 5006 Sergeant, (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps
- **Court:** U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review
- **Decided:** October 13, 1993
- **Citations:** 39 M.J. 626; 1993 CMR LEXIS 669; 1993 WL 574374
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Reed
- **Judges:** Jones, Lawrence, Reed
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8650999

## Opinion text

REED, Senior Judge
(concurring in part):
I concur with the lead opinion insofar as Judge Lawrence concludes (1) that the military-judge’s initial instruction on reconsideration and his answer to the president’s question were not erroneous; and (2) that the affidavits submitted by defense counsel merit only a limited inquiry and that only to determine whether the exceptions, contained in R.C.M. 923 and Mil.R.Evid. 606, for inquiry into the members’ deliberations existed. Like Judge Lawrence, I conclude that none of the exceptions in R.C.M. 923 or Mil. R.Evid. 606(b) is shown. Therefore, I concur with Judge Lawrence that the Court may not consider the affidavits or depositions as a means to impeach the findings or the sentence in this case. See United States v. Motsinger, 34 M.J. 255 (C.M.A.1992). Having reached this conclusion, I believe no further inquiry is necessary.
Although not required in the resolution of the issue before the Court, Judge Lawrence’s remarks in Part VII of his lead opinion are well-reasoned and I endorse them.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8650999. Public record. Not legal advice.