It’s posted on CAAF’s website here. Hasan v. Gross, 71 M.J. 416, Nos. 13-8011/13-8012/AR (C.A.A.F. Dec. 3, 2012) (per curiam) (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.). Finding that a reasonable person would doubt the military judge’s impartiality, CAAF unanimously ordered the military judge’s removal from the case due to the appearance of bias. As a result, CAAF vacated Judge Gross’s order to forcibly shave MAJ Hasan, as well as the six contempt citations.
CAAF explains that “the command, and not the military judge, has the primary responsibility for the enforcement of grooming standards. . . . A military judge’s contempt authority is directed toward control of the courtroom. Although the military judge here stated that Appellant’s beard was a ‘disruption,’ there was insufficient evidence on this record to demonstrate that Appellant’s beard materially interfered with the proceedings.” CAAF concluded that “taken together, the decision to remove Appellant from the courtroom, the contempt citations, and the decision to order Appellant’s forcible shaving in the absence of any command action to do the same, could lead an objective observer to conclude that the military judge was not impartial towards Appellant.”
CAAF ordered the “appropriate authority” to “detail a new military judge in this case.”