United States v. Rosato
United States Court of Military Appeals
32 M.J. 93 (1991)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Airman Basic Christopher L. Rosato (defendant) pled guilty to drug-related offenses in a trial by general court-martial. During the sentencing portion of the court-martial, Rosato’s company commander testified that Rosato had no potential for rehabilitation. Three defense witnesses testified that Rosato did have rehabilitation potential. Rosato attempted to introduce a letter from the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force recommending a rehabilitation program operated by the air force, as well as a newspaper article describing the program. The military judge did not allow Rosato to introduce the exhibits, reasoning that the rehabilitation program was an irrelevant collateral consequence of Rosato’s potential sentence. The judge also limited the contents of Rosato’s unsworn statement. Rosato was allowed to mention the existence of the program and his desire to enter it, but he was prohibited from discussing information other people had told him about the program or from describing his understanding of the demanding nature of the program and his determination to complete it. Rosato was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for two years, and total forfeiture of pay and allowances. The convening authority approved the sentence and, in compliance with Rosato’s pretrial agreement, suspended confinement exceeding 12 months. The Court of Military Review affirmed, and Rosato appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Everett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.