finding “nothing in the opinion that would lead one to conclude that the lower court did not give . . . appellant’s assignment[] of error careful consideration”
How later courts described this case
- finding “nothing in the opinion that would lead one to conclude that the lower court did not give . . . appellant’s assignment[] of error careful consideration”
- explaining that both factual and legal sufficiency in contested courts-martial cases are measured against the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard
- stating matters not introduced at trial are outside the record and may not be considered for factual or legal sufficiency on appeal
- upholding a service court's decision refusing to consider information from an Article 32, UCMJ, in evaluating guilt
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by United States v. Dawson, 65 M.J. 848 (2007)
To this extent we disagree with the Coast Guard court’s decision in Reed.
The opinion
SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring):
With regard to Issue III, I agree with the majority but wish to note that I remain convinced that a new option should be added to the list of possible punishments that a court-martial may consider — a discharge with no or partial loss of retirement benefits. This new punishment option would allow better and more flexible justice in our military justice system. See, e.g., United States v. Sumrall, 45 MJ 207 , 211 n. 3 (1996); see 45 *46 MJ 211A and 211B (appendix to Sullivan, J., dissenting).