Case Name: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. JAMES A. ESKRIDGE, Sergeant First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1957-09-27
Citations: 8 C.M.A. 261
Docket Number: No. 9590
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES A. ESKRIDGE, Sergeant First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant
Judges: Chief Judge Quinn concurs.
Reporter: Decisions of the United States Court of Military Appeals
Volume: 8
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES A. ESKRIDGE, Sergeant First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant
8 USCMA 261, 24 CMR 71
No. 9590
Decided September 27, 1957
First Lieutenant Robert J. Mearon, Jr., argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were Colonel J. M. Pitzer and Major Frank C. Stetson.
Captain Thomas J. Nichols argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Newton and First Lieutenant Arnold I. Burns.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
HomeR FeRGUSON, Judge:
This is another in a series of eases in which this Court has been called upon to determine whether an accused was denied the effective assistance of counsel by reason of his having been represented at his court-martial by counsel who had previously represented the prosecution's principal witness for substantially the same offenses. Both in United States v Lovett, 7 USCMA 704, 23 CMR 168, and in United States v Thornton, 8 USCMA 57, 23 CMR 281, the Court concluded that the accused had been denied the effective assistance of counsel because of such dual representation. The factual background presented in this case is substantially the same as that found in United States v Lovett, supra, and United States v Thornton, supra. Accordingly, the principles of law and the reasoning found in those cases are equally applicable in the instant case.
In view of the action we take in this case, the accused's petition for new trial is denied. We find it unnecessary to decide the remaining issues raised for they deal exclusively with the sentence imposed by the court-martial.
The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate Gen eral of the Army. A rehearing may be ordered.
Chief Judge Quinn concurs.