10 U.S.C. § 873
Art. 73. Petition for a new trial
At any time within three years after the date of the entry of judgment under section 860c of this title (article 60c), the accused may petition the Judge Advocate General for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court. If the accused’s case is pending before a Court of Criminal Appeals or before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Judge Advocate General shall refer the petition to the appropriate court for action. Otherwise the Judge Advocate General shall act upon the petition.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 152
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009).
United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009). “” 10 U. S. C. §873 . The only relief available under this “special post-conviction remedy” is a new trial, Burns, 346 U.”
United States v. Luke, 69 M.J. 309 (C.A.A.F. 2011). “Article 73, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 873 (2006). In his separate opinion, Judge Stucky argues that this time limit prohibits this court from exercising jurisdiction as to Issue I.”
United States v. Williams, 37 M.J. 352 (1993). “2 Such a request should be decided by a military judge in light of the criteria delineated in Article *356 73, UCMJ, 10 USC § 873 , 3 and RCM 1210(f). Id. Legal error (i.”
United States v. Claxton, 76 M.J. 356 (C.A.A.F. 2017). “17-0148/AF Opinion of the Court (JAG) for a new trial under Article 73, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 873 (2012). According to Appellant’s trial defense counsel, they were never notified that Cadet Thomas was a CI.”
United States v. Harris, 61 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F. 2005). “Appellant subsequently filed a petition for review before this Court as well as a separate petition for a new trial pursuant to Article 73, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 873 (2000), based on newly discovered evidence of lack of mental responsibility.”
United States v. Johnson, 61 M.J. 195 (C.A.A.F. 2005). “Article 73, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 873 (2000), allows petitions for new trials “on the grounds of newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court.”
United States v. Gray, 51 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 1999). “Article 73, UCMJ, 10 USC § 873 (1968), provides: § 873. Art.”
United States v. Murphy, 50 M.J. 4 (C.A.A.F. 1998). “73, UCMJ, 10 USC § 873 , permits a military member to petition for a new trial "[a]t any time within two years after approval .”
Loving v. United States, 68 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2009). “After direct judicial review is complete in a capital case, the military justice system provides three possible extra- judicial remedies that stand between an accused and the carrying-out of his sentence: a successful petition to the Judge Advocate General for a new trial under…”
United States v. Rankin, 63 M.J. 552 (N.M.C.C.A. 2006). “73, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 873 . The Supreme Court specifically listed business records as an example of a non-testimonial statement.”
Loving v. United States, 62 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 2005). “In a hearing that examined Article 73, the Department of Defense witness, Felix Larkin explained, "What we did was to combine what amounts to a writ of error coram nobis with the motion for a new trial on newly discovered evidence. We have provided for both of them and to our…”
United States v. Parker, 36 M.J. 269 (1993). “73, UCMJ, 10 USC § 873 ; RCM 1210, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984.”
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.