Case Name: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Willie B. DINKINS, Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1975-10-03
Citations: 1 M.J. 185
Docket Number: No. 30,294
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Willie B. DINKINS, Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Military Justice Reporter
Volume: 1
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Willie B. DINKINS, Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant.
No. 30,294.
U. S. Court of Military Appeals.
Oct. 3, 1975.
Lieutenant Colonel James Kucera, Captain Anthony J. Siano, and Captain Pete M. Dalmut were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.
Lieutenant Colonel Donald W. Hansen, Major Steven M. Werner, and Captain Raymond Michael Ripple were on the pleadings for the Appellee, United States.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
The Government points to several "unusual factors" to justify the 126-day Burton delay in bringing appellant to trial. See United States v. Marshall, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 431, 47 C.M.R. 409 (1973). The crucial delay triggering the Burton presumption was a Government witness' failure to secure in advance of the scheduled trial date a passport to return to Germany to testify. Assuring the presence of witnesses for trial is one of the routine responsibilities of the prosecution for which ample allowance was made in establishing the 90-day standard. United States v. Reitz, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 584, 48 C.M.R. 178 (1974). The Court of Military Review erred in affirming the findings and sentence.
The decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review is reversed. The charge and its specification are ordered dismissed.
. United States v. Burton, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 112, 44 C.M.R. 166 (1971).
. Both parties acknowledge that the defense must share responsibility for a portion of the delay in bringing appellant to trial, but that the Government remains accountable for a period in excess of 90 days.