Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Hiatt v. Brown — Opinion of the Court

Under the impetus for reform following World War I, the original draft of what became the 8th Article provided that every general court-martial should have a judge advocate whose duties were to be similar to those of the 'law member,' as finally provided for. The proposed Article would have provided further that such judge advocate of the court be a member of the Judge Advocate General's Department or an officer whose qualifications were approved by the Judge Advocate General.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Hiatt v. Brown — Opinion of the Court

Clearly no abuse is disclosed by the appointment of an officer from the Judge Advocate General's Department to a capacity other than law member on the detail, or by reassignment of that officer to other duty at the time of trial, or by the standard of competence in legal matters shown by the law member at the trial.
The Court of Appeals also concluded that certain errors committed by the military tribunal and reviewing authorities had deprived respondent of due process.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Hiatt v. Brown — Opinion of the Court

We agree with the latter interpretation that the availability of an officer as law member was intended by Congress to be a matter within the sound discretion of the appointing authority. Ordinarily the 'availability' of military personnel who are subject to assignment by an appointing authority is understood to depend upon a discretionary determination by the superior.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature