context: It is also clear that Captain Roth and the appellant were present at the deposition, and Captain Roth actively participated throughout the deposition including a thorough cross-examination of the deponent. In addition, Captain Roth was aware of the nature of SSgt Duncan's testimony based on his active participation in the Article 32 investigation on 7 August. Therefore, even though the written notice requirements of R.C.M. 702(e) were not completely satisfied, we find no prejudice resulted to the appellant.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: notice received by defense counsel approximately 1 hour before deposition
citation_a.sentence: See also United States v. Stewart, 3 C.M.R. 690 (A.F.B.R.1952) (notice received by defense counsel approximately 1 hour before deposition).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.parenthetical: 75 minutes elapsing between time defense was made aware of identity of intended deponent and time proceeding was opened was not reasonable notice
citation_b.sentence: But see United States v. Donati, 14 U.S.C.M.A. 235, 34 C.M.R. 15, (C.M.A.1963) (75 minutes elapsing between time defense was made aware of identity of intended deponent and time proceeding was opened was not reasonable notice); United States v. Giles, 42 C.M.R. 880 (A.C.M.R. 1970) (a telephone call to accused approximately an hour and a half before the deposition and at a time when accused was drinking and in no condition to participate in the proceeding did not constitute reasonable written notice).