Case: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. ARTHUR A. GLIDDEN, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant
Abbreviation: United States v. Glidden
Decision Date: 1964-09-18
Docket Number: No. 17,616
Citation: 15 C.M.A. 62
Volume: 15
Reporter: Decisions of the United States Court of Military Appeals
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee v ARTHUR A. GLIDDEN, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant
Judges: 
Pages: 62–62

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v ARTHUR A. GLIDDEN, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant
15 USCMA 62, 35 CMR 34
No. 17,616
September 18, 1964
Colonel Joseph L. Chalk and Captain Charles W. Schiesser were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.
Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper and Captain Charles M. Pallesen, Jr., were on the brief for Appellee, United States,
. Brief under Article 38(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, filed by Trial Defense Counsel, Captain Harvey B. Homel.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
Quinn, Chief Judge:
On his plea of guilty, a general court-martial in Verdun, France, convicted the accused of assault, with the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 928. On review before the board of review, he challenged the validity of the method by which the enlisted members of the court were selected, and alleged "an Army-wide policy of barring low-ranking enlisted men from sitting on courts-martial."
Although the evidence of thp selection process in this case is much more meager than that presented in United States v Crawford, 15 USCMA 31, 35 CMR 3, its substance is sufficiently close to justify consideration on the same basis. In the Crawford case, we sustained the method, as specifically designed and directly calculated to obtain enlisted persons with the statutory Qualifications for court members. Accordingly, the decision of the board .of review is affirmed.