Argument Preview: United States v. Hayes, No. 11-5003/NA
On Wednesday 2 November CAAF will hear oral argument in United States v. Hayes, No. 11-11-5003/NA. The granted issues are:
I. Whether the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal appeals erred when it held that appellant’s unsworn statement during presentencing raised the “possible defense” 0f duress.
II. Whether the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal appeals erred, as a matter of law, when it found that the accused’s unsworn statement raised the possibility of a defense when the facts on the record did not establish a prima facie case for duress.
III. Whether the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal appeals erred when it set aside the findings and sentence due to the military judge’s failure to investigate appellant’s plea for the possibility of a duress defense because suicide cannot, as a matter of law, be the threat necessary to establish the defense of duress.
The issues were certified to CAAF by the Judge Advocate General of the Navy after the N-MCCA set-aside the findings and sentence during the automatic appeal under Article 66, UCMJ. The Appellee, a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy, stole laboratory equipment from the Academy and sold it on eBay, earning approximately $13,000. He was convicted, consistent with his pleas, to a total of 21 specifications of violations of Articles 108 and 121, UCMJ, and was sentenced to confinement for 36 months, total forfeitures, a fine of $28,000, and a dismissal.
During the presentencing proceeding, the Appellee explained that during his third-year at the Academy his mother began calling him and asking for financial support. These calls included threats from his mother to end her own life. He also submitted a signed statement from his mother confirming these facts. This was an attempt by Appellee to explain his actions as mitigating circumstances, because he shared most of the proceeds from the thefts with his mother. The trial military judge did not reopen the providence inquiry after receiving this evidence, nor did counsel for either side request that he do so.
The N-MCCA found that the Appellee clearly raised material inconsistent with his pleas, specifically the possibility of a defense of duress, and that there is a substantial question of law or fact that compels questioning the pleas, and set-aside the findings and sentence.
The briefs focus on the difference between the “possibility of a defense,” which conflicts with a guilty plea, and the “mere possibility of a defense,” which does not conflict. The government’s brief explicitly invites the court to clarify the distinction between the two, and seeks definition of a “possibility of a defense” as a “prima facie case for a defense.” The Appellee’s brief argues that such a rule would undermine the principles of the plea inquiry, especially in a military context.
But Hayes presents a more specific issue, which is whether a threatened suicide can ever form the basis for a duress defense (Issue III). The government argues that a duress defense requires a three-party scenario (the accused, the assailant, and the victim), while the Appellee argues that the number of parties is immaterial. Both sides cite military caselaw in their arguments.
Case Links:
So if I understand this right, the Appellee’s claim is that his mother was essentially extorting him by threatening to kill herself if he didn’t give her money?
Did he ever go to Navy-Marine Corps Relief society? It sounds like a load of crap, but you never do know what kind of hell people will perpetrate on each other, even their own children, for money.