United States v. Acosta

Opinion

Under attack is the admissibility of evidence of a previous conviction by summary court, at which the accused was not sentenced to confinement, and of a previous conviction by special court-martial, at which the accused allegedly was represented by appointed counsel who was not a professional lawyer in the civilian sense. For the reasons set out in the separate opinions of Chief Judge Darden and

Judge Quinn in United States v Alderman, 22 USCMA 298, 46 CMR 298 (May 25, 1973), we sustain the admission of the evidence. The decision of the Court of Military Review is affirmed.

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Henry, 22 USCMA 328, 46 CMR 328 (June 8, 1973).