Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
v.
Enrique BARRAZAMARTINEZ, Lance Corporal
U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant
No. 02-0865
Crim. App. No. 200101575
S. A. Folsom
In early February
According to Appellant,
hidden in the truck, but he did not know its quantity or exact
location in the truck.
His case
See United
Reference to such
Id. at 108.
Thus,
United States v.
(C.M.A. 1983).
Trial counsels reference to Appellant as almost a traitor
gives us pause.
counsel used the term only once, and he qualified it with the
word almost.
Id. at 1257-58.
for trial counsel to argue that Appellant had betrayed the trust
placed in him as a member of the United States Marine Corps.
Defense counsel did not consider the argument sufficiently
offensive to warrant an objection.
n.6.
2001).
Appellant asserts that the court below erred by not granting
him sentence relief in light of the significantly less severe
sentence of his co-conspirator, LCpl Martinezgarcia.
The
Government does not dispute that the two cases are closely
related and that the sentences are highly disparate.
The
Government argues, however, that the court below did not abuse
its discretion by affirming Appellants sentence because there
was a rational basis for the disparity between Appellants
sentence and that of his co-conspirator.
The court below concluded that the two cases are closely
related and that the sentences are highly disparate, but it
concluded that the Government had carried its burden of showing a
rational basis for Appellants more severe sentence.
court reasoned as follows:
The lower
Accordingly,
we hold that the court below did not abuse its discretion or
cause a miscarriage of justice by affirming Appellants sentence.
IV. Decision
The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of
Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
was an error; (2) the error was plain or obvious; and (3) the
error materially prejudiced a substantial right.
Id. at 463-65.
Both the lead opinion and the dissenting opinion set forth
reasonable interpretations of trial counsels closing argument.
In that context, Appellant has not met his burden of
demonstrating under the second prong of Powell that any error
was so obvious that the military judge should have intervened in
the absence of objection by defense counsel.
In reaching
Second, trial
_ M.J. (6)
Id.
The war
Rather, he
this war.
Nor is this
_ M.J. (6).
In a military
particularly inflammatory.