United States v. Broadnax
United States Court of Military Appeals
23 M.J. 389 (1987)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Army Private Lorenzo Broadnax (defendant) was accused of forging a check. At Broadnax’s court-martial, the prosecution (plaintiff) submitted a forensic laboratory report from a document examiner who had reviewed the check, examples of Broadnax’s handwriting, and examples of the checking-account owner’s handwriting. The report stated that the document examiner believed that Broadnax had written everything on the forged check except the date. The handwriting examples reviewed by the document examiner were not submitted as evidence in the trial. Broadnax objected to the report being admitted as evidence. However, the military judge admitted the report, finding that it was admissible under the public-records-and-reports exception to hearsay in Military Rule of Evidence 803(8). Broadnax was convicted. On appeal, Broadnax argued that the report should have been excluded from his trial.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)
Concurrence (Cox, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
