United States v. Katz

Opinion of the Court

We granted review in this case to consider the correctness of the trial proceedings leading to the acceptance of the accused’s plea of guilty. The issue was then pending undetermined in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296, decided this date. For the reasons set out in our opinion in that case, we affirm the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Military Review.

(dissenting) :

I dissent.

I disagree with my brothers’ holding in this case that the plea of guilty was *127properly accepted by the military judge for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296 (1970). The military judge’s failure to make a specific finding on the record that the accused knowingly, intelligently, and consciously waived his right against self-incrimination, his right to trial of the facts by a court-martial, and his right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, is, in my opinion, reversible error. Cf. United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969); United States v Fortier, 19 USCMA 149, 41 CMR 149 (1969). Without this specific finding on the record, the record is not verbatim as required by law. See my separate opinion in Palos, supra.