Court Opinion

ID: 9836949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:38.358694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.464154
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring):
I write only to say that I still believe United States v. Short, 50 MJ 370 (1999), was wrongly decided. There, the Government at trial conceded that an expert was necessary and proffered a “conflicted” one. Id. at 378-79 (Effron and Sullivan, JJ., dissenting). No such concession exists in this case, and I agree with the majority that appellant did not establish the third prong of necessity under United States v. Gonzalez, 39 MJ 459, 461 (CMA), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 965, 115 S.Ct. 429, 130 L.Ed.2d 342 (1994).