10 U.S.C. § 828
Art. 28. Detail or employment of reporters and interpreters
Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, the convening authority of a court-martial, military commission, or court of inquiry shall detail or employ qualified court reporters, who shall record the proceedings of and testimony taken before that court or commission. Under like regulations the convening authority of a court-martial, military commission, or court of inquiry may detail or employ interpreters who shall interpret for the court or commission. This section does not apply to a military commission established under chapter 47A of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1976–2005 · leading case: Hamdan, Salim Ahmed v. Rumsfeld, Donald H., 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
Hamdan, Salim Ahmed v. Rumsfeld, Donald H., 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “, 10 U.S.C. §§ 828 , 847(a)(1), 849(d), and Hamdan does not allege that the regulations establishing the present commission violate any of the pertinent provisions.”
United States v. Best, 61 M.J. 376 (C.A.A.F. 2005). “Congress provided for court reporters and interpreters (Article 28, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 828 (2000)) but left their qualifications to the service secretaries.”
United States v. Dionne, 6 M.J. 791 (1978). “Article 28, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 828 , provides in pertinent part: “Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, the convening authority of a court-martial, .”
United States v. Johnson, 14 M.J. 710 (1982). “MALONE, Judge: Appellant, in accordance with the terms of his pretrial agreement, plead guilty at a general court-martial bench trial to, and was convicted of, the offense of aggravated assault upon Lance Corporal Berta by shooting at him with a shotgun in violation of Article…”
United States v. Simpson, 2 M.J. 1125 (1976). “8 I agree with Judge Lynch that the process of utilizing videotapes as a method of preserving the events at trial does not per se violate due process as a matter of law under the system utilized in the Coast Guard.”
United States v. May, 18 M.J. 809 (1984). “At the subsequent court-martial, where A is charged with suffering the loss of the Government property (Article 108, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 828 ), it arguably would be permissible for the Government to introduce the prior conviction to prove that A was in fact asleep at the time of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.