U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47A— MILITARY COMMISSIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VII— POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS

10 U.S.C. § 950a

Error of law; lesser included offense

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Error of Law.—A finding or sentence of a military commission under this chapter may not be held incorrect on the ground of an error of law unless the error materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused.(b)Lesser Included Offense.—Any reviewing authority with the power to approve or affirm a finding of guilty by a military commission under this chapter may approve or affirm, instead, so much of the finding as includes a lesser included offense.(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, § 1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2599.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 950a, added Pub. L. 109–366, § 3(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2618, related to error of law and lesser included offense, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–84.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2014–2016 · leading case: Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 792 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 792 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “52(b); 10 U.S.C. § 950a(a)). The appellate court automatically excuses the defendant’s forfeiture but reviews his argument under a more 6 exacting standard.”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “1, 15 (1985); see also 10 U.S.C. § 950a(a) (Supp. III 2010) (Military Commissions Act of 2009 review provision specifying that only errors that “materially prejudice[] the substantial rights 12 of the accused” may be corrected).”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 840 F.3d 757 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “” 10 U.S.C. § 950a; see id. § 950g. The offenses our colleagues glimpse in the record are neither the charged inchoate conspiracy nor lesser-included offenses of that' crime.”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States (D.C. Cir. 2014). “1, 15 (1985); see also 10 U.S.C. § 950a(a) (Supp. III 2010) (Military Commissions Act of 2009 review provision specifying that only errors that “materially prejudice[] the substantial rights 12 of the accused” may be corrected).”
— 10 U.S.C. § 950a(a) — 3 cases
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 792 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “52(b); 10 U.S.C. § 950a(a)). The appellate court automatically excuses the defendant’s forfeiture but reviews his argument under a more 6 exacting standard.”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “1, 15 (1985); see also 10 U.S.C. § 950a(a) (Supp. III 2010) (Military Commissions Act of 2009 review provision specifying that only errors that “materially prejudice[] the substantial rights 12 of the accused” may be corrected).”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States (D.C. Cir. 2014). “1, 15 (1985); see also 10 U.S.C. § 950a(a) (Supp. III 2010) (Military Commissions Act of 2009 review provision specifying that only errors that “materially prejudice[] the substantial rights 12 of the accused” may be corrected).”
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.