United States v. Edwards
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
46 M.J. 41 (1997)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Aviation Boatswain’s Mate Glen Edwards (defendant) received nonjudicial punishment for an unauthorized absence and for carrying a concealed weapon. Edwards received this punishment while attached to the U.S.S. Constellation, which was dry-docked for an overhaul. During the nonjudicial-punishment proceedings, Edwards was not given a Booker warning, i.e., a notice that he had a right to confer with counsel about demanding a court-martial instead of a nonjudicial punishment. Later, Edwards faced a special court-martial for six additional unauthorized absences. After Edwards was convicted, the prosecution (plaintiff) offered evidence of the prior nonjudicial punishment from the U.S.S. Constellation to request a more severe sentence for the court-martial conviction. Edwards objected, arguing that evidence of the prior nonjudicial punishment was inadmissible because he had not received a Booker warning during the prior proceedings. The judge ruled that even though the U.S.S. Constellation had not been operational, Edwards had been attached to a vessel. Thus, Edwards had not been entitled to receive a Booker warning, and the prior-punishment evidence was admissible. Edwards appealed the evidentiary ruling. The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the admissibility of the nonjudicial-punishment evidence, and Edwards appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gierke, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Sullivan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.