Summary

Burns v. Wilson — Opinion of the Court

Thus the law which governs a civil court in the exercise of its jurisdiction over military habeas corpus applications cannot simply be assimilated to the law which governs the exercise of that power in other instances. It is sui generis; it must be so, because of the peculiar relationship between the civil and military law.
Military law, like state law, is a jurisprudence which exists separate and apart from the law which governs in our federal judicial establishment. [2] This Court has played no role in its development; we have exerted no supervisory power over the courts which enforce it
Source: Wikisource

Burns v. Wilson — Opinion of the Court

Petitioners have failed to show that this military review was legally inadequate to resolve the claims which they have urged upon the civil courts. They simply demand an opportunity to make a new record, to prove de novo in the District Court precisely the case which they failed to prove in the military courts. We think under the circumstances, that due regard for the limitations on a civil court's power to grant such relief precludes such action.
Source: Wikisource

Burns v. Wilson — Opinion of the Court

Rigorous provisions guarantee a trial as free as possible from command influence, the right to prompt arraignment, the right to counsel of the accused's own choosing, and the right to secure witnesses and prepare an adequate defense. [6] The revised Articles, and their successor-the new Code-also establish a hierarchy within the military establishment to review the convictions of courts-martial, to ferret out irregularities in the trial, and to enforce the procedural safeguards which Congress determined to guarantee to those in the Nation's armed services.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature