Court Opinion

ID: 9836536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:10.959537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:17.944913
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Senior Judge
(concurring in the result):
I would affirm.
On Issue I, there was no showing of prejudice resulting to appellant from the use of the attorney-client material. See United States v. Tanksley, 54 MJ 169, 172 (2000).
On Issue II, the facts in this case are weaker than those in United States v. French, 38 MJ 420, 428-31 (CMA 1993) (Sullivan, C.J., dissenting). In the instant case, neither appellant’s First Sergeant nor any other. American military personnel played a role in the actual interrogation of appellant. Cf. id. at 434. Moreover, the level of coordination between foreign police and military authorities was minimal compared to that in French. Id. at 429-30. Accordingly, there was no merger of the civilian and military investigations.