10 U.S.C. § 840
Art. 40. Continuances
The military judge or a summary court-martial may, for reasonable cause, grant a continuance to any party for such time, and as often, as may appear to be just.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2021 · leading case: United States v. Master Sergeant ALAN S. GUARDADO, 75 M.J. 889 (A.C.C.A. 2016).
United States v. Master Sergeant ALAN S. GUARDADO, 75 M.J. 889 (A.C.C.A. 2016). “40, 10 U.S.C. § 840 (2012). However, the military judge may not exclude admissible relevant evidence because a witness has chosen not to return the trial counsel’s phone calls.”
United States v. Wellington, 58 M.J. 420 (C.A.A.F. 2003). “1105 he repeated his assertion that his restriction was tantamount to confinement, but he did not point out that the SJAR was incorrect.”
United States v. Weisbeck, 50 M.J. 461 (C.A.A.F. 1999). “Article 40, UCMJ, 10 USC § 840 , provides: "The military judge .”
United States v. Vargas, 74 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2014). “may promote justice at the trial”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Article 40, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 840 (2012); R.C.M. 801(a), 804(e), 906(b)(1); Military Rule of Evidence 611(a).”
United States v. Redding, 11 M.J. 100 (1981). “Article 40, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 840 , provides that a “military judge .”
United States v. Thomas, 22 M.J. 57 (1986). “40, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 840 . The decision to grant or deny a continuance is within his broad discretion and, absent clear abuse, will not be overturned.”
United States v. Wiest, 59 M.J. 276 (C.A.A.F. 2004). “Article 40, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 840 (2000); Rule for Courts-Martial 906(b)(1).”
United States v. Menoken, 14 M.J. 10 (1982). “Before ruling on the motion, the military judge determined that defense counsel had been representing the accused since July 3, 1980, and that defense counsel had spoken to Sergeant Tressa on the telephone two days prior to trial.”
United States v. Rojas, 15 M.J. 902 (1983). “Halleck from testifying. We disagree. For reasonable cause, a military judge may grant a continuance to any party for such time and as often as may appear to be just.”
United States v. Garries, 19 M.J. 845 (1985). “The trial judge considering that issue resolved, directed that the proceedings resume on 28 February 1983. A request for a continuance of the proceedings may be made by either party thereto and should be granted upon a showing of reasonable cause.”
United States v. Hampton, 7 M.J. 284 (1979). “See Article 40, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 840 . Defense counsel sought delay of the court-martial for the express purpose of contacting and interviewing 14 recently discovered individuals who were recruited around the time of the appellant’s enlistment.”
United States v. Sullivan, 26 M.J. 442 (1988). “40, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 840 . Here, the command-influence episodes were well known to counsel, and the issues had been litigated in three prior trials.”
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.