Search: "article 60"

This Week in Military Justice – May 10, 2015

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court.

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week, both on Tuesday, May 12, 2015, beginning at 9 a.m.:

United States v. Sullivan, No. 15-0186/CG (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether the Government carried its burden of proving that the convening authority’s categorical exclusion of all flag officers was harmless.
II. Whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying challenges from both parties to his impartiality based on prior personal relationships with individual military counsel, the accused, trial counsel, several members, several witnesses, and the staff judge advocate.

Case Links:
CGCCA opinion
Blog post: Analysis of CGCCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

United States v. Quick, No. 15-0347/MC (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether precedent authorizing courts of criminal appeals to order sentence-only rehearings should be overruled based on: (a) Jackson v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 569 (1957), which stated “no [such] authority” exists; (b) the plain language of the statute including the conjunctive “findings and sentence” in Article 66(d) in contrast to authority granted the judge advocates general in Article 69(a) to act with respect to “findings or sentence or both” and the convening authority in Article 60(f)(3) to order sentence rehearings; and, (c) judicial economy.

Case Links:
NMCCA opinion
Blog post: Analysis of NMCCA opinion
Appellant’s (Government) brief
Appellee’s brief
Appellant’s (Government) reply brief
Amicus brief: Air Force Appellate Defense Division
Amicus brief: Air Force Appellate Government Division
Amicus brief: Goast Guard Appellate Government Division
Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, May 14, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Hills, No. 20130833

Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion by granting the Government’s motion to use the charged sexual misconduct for Military Rule of Evidence 413 purposes to prove propensity to commit the charged sexual conduct.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard Trial Docket shows no scheduled oral arguments at the Coast Guard CCA.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

Argument Preview: United States v. Quick, No. 15-0347/MC

CAAF will hear oral argument in the certified Marine Corps case of United States v. Quick, No. 15-0347/MC (CAAFlog case page), on Tuesday, May 12, 2015. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy certified the case to CAAF in order to challenge the court’s longstanding precedent that permits a court of criminal appeals to order a rehearing on only the sentence adjudged by a court-martial, with the following issue:

Whether precedent authorizing courts of criminal appeals to order sentence-only rehearings should be overruled based on: (a) Jackson v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 569 (1957), which stated “no [such] authority” exists; (b) the plain language of the statute including the conjunctive “findings and sentence” in Article 66(d) in contrast to authority granted the judge advocates general in Article 69(a) to act with respect to “findings or sentence or both” and the convening authority in Article 60(f)(3) to order sentence rehearings; and, (c) judicial economy.

Appellee was convicted contrary to his pleas of not guilty, by a general court-martial composed of members with enlisted representation, of conspiring to distribute an indecent visual recording, wrongfully viewing an indecent visual recording, and indecent conduct in violation of Articles 81, 120c, and 134. He was sentenced to confinement for six months, reduction to E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge. But on review, in what I called a significant published decision from the NMCCA interpreting Article 120c (2012) in this post, the NMCCA concluded that the offense of indecent viewing requires that an accused actually view the real-life private area of a person, and the court reversed Appellee’s indecent viewing conviction that was based on merely viewing a recording (made surreptitiously) of another person’s private area.

The CCA then remanded the case for a rehearing on the sentence. This seemingly-innocuous procedure returns the case to the convening authority who then has the option to either refer the case to a new court-martial (that may be composed of members or of a military judge alone, depending on the election of the accused) to adjudge another sentence, or to forego another sentence and approve a sentence of no punishment. See R.C.M. 810; R.C.M. 1107(e)(1)(C)(iii).

Sentence rehearings are nearly as old as the UCMJ itself, as the Court of Military Appeals (now known as CAAF) held in United States v. Miller, 10 C.M.A. 296, 299 (C.M.A. 1959), that:

a rehearing limited to sentence alone may be an appropriate and permissive remedy for the cure of errors not affecting findings.

And while innumerable sentence rehearings occurred on the half-century since Miller was decided, CAAF also reaffirmed Miller in its recent opinion in United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11, 14 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (CAAFlog case page), though the court was divided on this issue, with Judges Stucky and Ryan practically inviting a Government challenge to end the practice in separate concurring opinions in that case.

In Quick, the Government makes that challenge.

Read more »

A significant decision from the NMCCA gets even more significant

On Friday, January 30, CAAF docketed a certificate for review of the NMCCA’s decision in United States v. Quick, __ M.J. __, No. 201300341 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 31, 2014). I analyzed the CCA’s opinion in this post.

In Quick, the NMCCA significantly limited the reach of Article 120c(a)(1) (2012), finding that the offense of indecent viewing requires that an accused actually view the real-life private area of a person. The CCA reversed the appellant’s conviction for merely viewing a recording (made surreptitiously) of another person’s private area, finding that the specification failed to state an offense. The CCA then ordered a sentence rehearing.

The Government didn’t certify the CCA’s decision regarding Article 120c(a)(1). Rather, it certified an issue challenging the authority of the CCA to order a sentence rehearing in any case:

No. 15-0347/MC. U.S., Appellant v. Christopher A. Quick, Appellee. CCA 201300341.  Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue:

WHETHER PRECEDENT AUTHORIZING COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TO ORDER SENTENCE-ONLY REHEARINGS SHOULD BE OVERRULED BASED ON (A) JACKSON v. TAYLOR, 353 U.S. 569 (1957), WHICH STATED “NO [SUCH] AUTHORITY” EXISTS; (B) THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE INCLUDING THE CONJUNCTIVE “FINDINGS AND SENTENCE” IN ARTICLE 66(d) IN CONTRAST TO AUTHORITY GRANTED THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL IN ARTICLE 69(a) TO ACT WITH RESPECT TO “FINDINGS AND SENTENCE OR BOTH” AND THE CONVENING AUTHORITY IN ARTICLE 60(f)(3) TO ORDER SENTENCE REHEARINGS; AND (C) JUDICIAL ECONOMY.

Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before March 2, 2015.

Revisiting the Top Ten Military Justice Stories of 2013

Next week we will continue an annual tradition for the seventh year, counting down the Top Ten Military Justice Stories of 2014. But before we do that, let’s revisit last year’s list.

#10 was Article 10, the speedy trial provision of the UCMJ. Writing for a sharply divided court, Judge Erdmann denied relief despite finding “several periods of unexplained or unjustified delay” in United States v. Wilson, 72 M.J. 347, 355 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (CAAFlog case page). Judge Erdmann’s majority opinion acknowledged that CAAF has “repeatedly stressed that Article 10 is a more stringent standard than the Sixth Amendment.” 72 M.J. at 352 n.2. But that proposition comes from United States v. Burton, 44 C.M.R. 166, 171 (C.M.A. 1971), and United States v. McCallister, 27 M.J. 138, 141 (C.M.A. 1988), and just like the disco music and big hair of the eras of Burton and McCallister, Article 10 is dead.

#9 was all about the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. We noticed things were getting bad at the Air Force court back in 2012, when the delay in resolving cases caused appellants to seek relief from CAAF and the news media to take an interest. “Going for guano crazy,” we thought, and the court made our list. But things got even worse in 2014, with CAAF’s invalidation of the appointment of a civilian official to the AFCCA by the Secretary of Defense. That appointment was ostensibly made to help clear the backlog of cases plaguing the Air Force court, but CAAF’s unanimous opinion in United States v. Janssen, 73 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (CAAFlog case page), authored by Judge Stucky (himself a retired Air Force Colonel who served on the AFCCA), was just a touch ironic.

#8 was the confirmation of the appointment of Judge Ohlson to CAAF. After a long confirmation delay attributable to the politics of a divided government, Judge Ohlson become CAAF’s newest judge in 2013. Since then he’s participated in 25 cases, joining the majority in 22 of them. But it’s also clear that Judge Ohlson (formerly a career attorney in the Department of Justice) is not afraid to go it alone, as he confronted the other four judges with a strongly-worded dissent in United States v. Frey, writing that “the impropriety of [the trial counsel’s sentencing] argument is nothing short of breathtaking.” 73 M.J. 245, 253 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (CAAFlog case page).

#7 considered claims of unlawful command influence (UCI) by the civilian leadership of the armed forces. The President talked tough about military sexual assault prosecutions in an early May 2013 press conference, and a litigation bonanza ensued. Judges ruled, the Government pursued a number of interlocutory appeals, and the Secretary of Defense tried to clear the air. Then a majority of CAAF sidestepped the fundamental question of whether a civilian official can even commit UCI, with its decision in United States v. Hutchins, 72 M.J. 294 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (CAAFlog case page). Sadly, odds are good that CAAF will face this thorny issue again soon.

#6 focused on a specific allegation of UCI: that General Amos unlawfully influenced subordinates tasked with addressing a highly publicized video of Marines urinating on corpses in Afghanistan. The story had all the drama of a soap opera. But while the Commandant of the Marine Corps focused on the Marines associated with the video, many observers focused on the Commandant. Even after General Amos’ retirement in 2014, critics continue to question his qualifications and conduct, and defense counsel continue to assert that his actions unlawfully influenced a wide range of disciplinary processes.

#5 was the Wilkerson court-martial and its effects. Air Force Lieutenant General Craig Franklin exercised his authority under Article 60(c) to set aside the sexual assault conviction of Air Force Lieutenant Colonel James Wilkerson in 2013, and it was a military justice shot heard round the world. A frenzy of criticism erupted, and Congress ended the year by strictly curbing a convening authority’s previously unfettered ability to reduce the findings or sentence of a court-martial.

#4 was the Salyer case. When a prosecutor facing a mistrial suggests that the judge’s personal life might be a reason to disqualify him from the case, and then a supervisory prosecutor digs through the judge’s personnel record looking for material to use for that purpose, and then the officer-in-charge, also an attorney, participates in the effort to remove the judge, causing the judge to recuse himself, and the accused is convicted of possession of child pornography, but 21 months later an appellate court dismisses the case with prejudice because of the actions of the prosecutors and the officer-in-charge, that’s enough to qualify for a spot on our top ten list. But the Salyer case had even more.

#3 was the Manning case. The prosecution of Army Private First Class Bradley (a.k.a. Chelsea) Manning for leaking classified material was a long drama. CAAF almost got involved in 2013, but the court narrowly decided that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for greater public access to the trial proceedings in Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v. United States and Colonel Lind, 72 M.J. 126 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (CAAFlog case page). Then, in a summertime trial, Manning was convicted of various offenses, some in accordance with pleas of guilty, and sentenced to confinement for 35 years and a dishonorable discharge.

#2 was the adjudged death sentence for Army Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter. Hasan became the sixth member of the military’s death row after firing his attorneys, representing himself, conceding that he was the shooter in his opening statement, and resting his case without presenting any evidence. A panel of thirteen members convicted Hasan of 13 specifications of premeditated murder and 32 specifications of attempted murder, and then deliberated for less than two hours before sentencing him to death.

Finally, the #1 Military Justice Story of 2013 was the changes to the UCMJ enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. It’s hard to say exactly when the issue of sexual assault became a crisis in the military, but 2013 was the year that this long-simmering issue boiled over. Congress rushed to pass a NDAA in the final weeks of 2013, and the President signed it into law exactly one year ago today. The legislation contained numerous military justice provisions, including some new Articles, many changes to old ones, and a significant number of obvious drafting errors. As the sun rose on 2014, we took stock of those new provisions and wondered what the year ahead had in store for us.

We’ll answer that question on Monday, when we count down the Top Ten Military Justice Stories of 2014.

Military justice provisions in the FY15 NDAA

The Hill reports here on the Senate’s final passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The complete text of the bill is available here.

The bill contains numerous provisions of interest to military justice practitioners (see Division A, Title V, Subtitle D). Here are the highlights:

  • Section 531 makes numerous “technical revisions and clarifications” to last year’s changes to the UCMJ, including:
    • Correcting technical language regarding a convening authority’s action on a “qualifying offense” (original text analyzed here);
    • Correcting the definition of a victim in the new Article 60(d) (original text analyzed here);
    • Adding language explicitly authorizing an accused’s waiver of an Article 32 preliminary inquiry (original text analyzed here);
    • Expanding the prohibition on defense counsel interviews of an alleged victim of a sex offense to include any “counsel for the accused” and to involve notification to any counsel for the alleged victim (original text analyzed here);
    • Adding the word “unlawful” into the new forcible sodomy/bestiality statute (Article 125) (original text analyzed here);
    • Clarification of the definition of prospective members of the armed forces for purposes of inappropriate and prohibited relationships;
    • Technical changes to the new Article 6b (original text analyzed here and here);
    • Making the new Article 32 effective on December 26, regardless of the date of the alleged offense (original text analyzed here);
    • Restoring a convening authority’s total discretion to act on the findings or sentence (except for offenses with a mandatory minimum) when a conviction involves offenses that occurred both before and after the effective date of the new Article 60(c) (original text analyzed here).
  • Section 532 enacts a new Article 49, permitting depositions only “if the party [seeking the deposition] demonstrates that, due to exceptional circumstances, it is in the interest of justice that the testimony of the prospective witness be taken and preserved…” This is likely a reaction to the McDowell case (last discussed here).
  • Section 535 enacts a new paragraph (e) in Article 6(b) that gives an alleged victim an explicit right to petition a CCA for a writ of mandamus to force compliance with M.R.E. 412 (the rape shield) and M.R.E. 513 (the psychotherapist-patient privilege). This is likely a reaction to the dissenting opinions in LRM v. Kastenberg, 72 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (CAAFlog case page).
  • Section 536 limits the admissibility of good military character evidence, as follows:

SEC. 536. MODIFICATION OF MILITARY RULES OF EVIDENCE RELATING TO ADMISSIBILITY OF GENERAL MILITARY CHARACTER TOWARD PROBABILITY OF INNOCENCE.

(a) Modification Required- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, Rule 404(a) of the Military Rules of Evidence shall be amended to provide that the general military character of an accused is not admissible for the purpose of showing the probability of innocence of the accused for an offense specified in subsection (b).

(b) Covered Offenses- Subsection (a) applies to the following offenses under chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice):

(1) An offense under sections 920 through 923a of such title (articles 120 through 123a).

(2) An offense under sections 925 through 927 of such title (articles 125 through 127).

(3) An offense under sections 929 through 932 of such title (articles 129 through 132).

(4) Any other offense under such chapter (the Uniform Code of Military Justice) in which evidence of the general military character of the accused is not relevant to an element of an offense for which the accused has been charged.

(5) An attempt to commit an offense or a conspiracy to commit an offense specified in a preceding paragraph as punishable under section 880 or 881 of such title (article 80 or 81).

I’ve written about this before and I will write about it again in the coming weeks.

  • Section 537 requires modification to M.R.E. 513 to eliminate the “constitutionally required” exception to the privilege (paragraph (d)(8)) and to increase the burden on a party seeking production or admission of privileged matters.
  • Section 541 gives the “chief prosecutor” of each Armed Force the power to force secretarial review of a convening authority’s decision to not refer a charged sex-related offense to trial.

A confused call to eliminate the factual sufficiency powers of the Courts of Criminal Appeals

The law review at my alma mater recently published an article calling for an end to the Article 66(c) power of a court of criminal appeals to conduct a factual sufficiency review of a court-martial conviction. Matt C. Pinsker, Ending the Military’s Courts of Criminal Appeals De Novo Review of Findings of Fact, 47 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 471 (2014) (link to article). The author is a practicing criminal defense attorney who worked as an extern with the Army Government Appellate Division while studying for his LL.M.

The article asserts that the justifications for the CCA’s factual sufficiency review power no longer exist because:

Due to amendments to the UCMJ over the past fifty years, military trials now resemble civilian trials and are presided over at both special and general courts-martial by an independent and professional circuit of military judges with powers modeled after Article III judges. This has reduced the potential for command influence while increasing the professionalism of trials, thus mitigating the chances of legal error. Furthermore, the fact-finding power of the military’s courts of criminal appeals is actually an impediment to justice because it adds a considerable burden on the military’s already severely backlogged appellate system. Claims of factual insufficiency are frequently and easily made by appellate defense counsel, but are very time consuming for appellate prosecutors to respond to.

Pinsker, supra, at 472. The article makes numerous assertions that I think are a stretch, including claiming that there is “a powerful military [trial] judiciary,” id. at 487, and asserting that “the United States Supreme Court recognized the change from law officers to military judges has created an independent judiciary within the military,” id. at 487 (citing Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163, 191-192 (1994) (Souter, J., concurring)). However, Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion of the Court in Weiss explained:

[T]he position of military judge is less distinct from other military positions than the office of full-time civilian judge is from other offices in civilian society. As the lead opinion in the Court of Military Appeals noted, military judges do not have any “inherent judicial authority separate from a court-martial to which they have been detailed. When they act, they do so as a court-martial, not as a military judge. Until detailed to a specific court-martial, they have no more authority than any other military officer of the same grade and rank.” Military appellate judges similarly exercise judicial functions only when they are “assigned” to a Court of Military Review. Neither military trial nor appellate judges, moreover, have a fixed term of office. Commissioned officers are assigned or detailed to the position of military judge by a Judge Advocate General for a period of time he deems necessary or appropriate, and then they may be reassigned to perform other duties. Even while serving as military trial judges, officers may perform, with the permission of the Judge Advocate General, duties unrelated to their judicial responsibilities. Whatever might be the case in civilian society, we think that the role of military judge is “germane” to that of military officer.

510 U.S. at 175-76 (1994) (citations omitted). I agree that military judge’s have a significant measure of independence (though the fleeting nature of their assignment is notable), but I don’t agree that military judges are “powerful” (particularly when their limited powers are compared to the powers of Article III judges, or even to the powers of a convening authority).

Another assertion that I question is that:

Claims of factual insufficiency place a very heavy burden on the government’s appellate attorneys. Answering the defense’s claim of factual insufficiency forces government attorneys to reargue the case on paper, which is a very time-consuming process. A government attorney has to go through hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of pages of the trial record to pick out evidence and witness testimony supporting the finding of guilt and rebutting the claims of the appellate defense attorneys. Depending on the length of the trial record and the specific nature of the claims of factual insufficiency, addressing this one assignment of error can easily take a government attorney days to complete, despite its high likelihood of futility.

Pinsker, supra, at 503. I doubt that factual insufficiency claims are so vague as to require Government counsel to engage in scavenger hunts for rebuttal evidence, and I can’t help but marvel at the author’s claim – in a single sentence – that factual insufficiency claims both have a high likelihood of futility and require comprehensive rebuttals. The author also sees a need “to discourage appellate defense counsels from alleging factual sufficiency assignments of errors they know are unlikely to succeed.” Id. at 504. This reads like an assertion that appellate defense counsel make frivolous claims.

Another part of the article asserts that service members facing court-martial enjoy greater due process protections than civilians facing civil prosecution, citing five examples: Article 31 rights, free appellate counsel, the Care inquiry, free mitigation experts, and clemency. Pinsker, supra, at 507-519. I think each of these examples is flawed, for the following reasons:

Read more »

JSC solicits public comments for proposed amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial

Today’s Federal Register contains this public notice, 79 Fed. Reg. 59,937 (Oct. 3, 2014), of proposed changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial. The notice also solicits public comments regarding the proposed changes (due no later than December 2, 2014), and provides notice of a public meeting about the proposed changes to occur on October 29, 2014, at CAAF.

The proposed changes consume 22 pages in the Federal Register (shorter than the 34 pages of changes proposed in 2012 and only partially adopted in 2013). The proposed changes mainly implement the military justice reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, signed into law by the President on December 26, 2013 (I discussed these reforms in a series of posts available here).

While much of the proposed changes are unremarkable, there are some surprises. For example, R.C.M. 405 (addressing the Article 32 process) is revised in its entirety (because of the revised Article 32 effective in December). The revised R.C.M. 405(h) states that

the Military Rules of Evidence do not apply in preliminary hearings under this rule except as follows . . . Mil. R. Evid. 412 shall apply in any case that includes a charge defined as a sexual offense in Mil. R. Evid. 412(d), except that Mil. R. Evid. 412(b)(1)(C) shall not apply. . . . [Mil. R. Evid.] 513(d)(8); and 514(d)(6) shall not apply.

79 Fed. Reg. at 59,941 (proposed R.C.M. 405(h)). These three Military Rules of Evidence that do not apply (412(b)(1)(c), 513(d)(8), and 514(d)(6)) are the constitutional exceptions to the general rules prohibiting admission of an alleged victim’s other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition (M.R.E. 412), establishing the psychotherapist-patient privilege (M.R.E. 513), and establishing the victim advocate privilege (M.R.E. 514).

The proposed changes emphasize that M.R.E. 412, 513, and 514 apply as exclusionary rules only, stating that the hearing officer “shall assume the military judge’s authority to exclude evidence from the preliminary hearing.” 79 Fed. Reg. at 59,941 (proposed R.C.M. 405(h)(4)) (emphasis added). Further, a new discussion section explains:

Although Mil. R. Evid. 412(b)(1)(C) allows admission of evidence of the victim’s sexual behavior or predisposition at trial when it is constitutionally required, there is no constitutional requirement at an Article 32 hearing. There is likewise no constitutional requirement for a pretrial hearing officer to consider evidence under Mil. R. Evid. 513(d)(8), and 514(d)(6) at an Article 32 hearing.

79 Fed. Reg. at 59,950.

The proposal also provides a new definition of the term “matters in mitigation” for the purpose of an Article 32 preliminary hearing:

For the purposes of this rule, “matters in mitigation” are defined as matters that may serve to explain the circumstances surrounding a charged offense.

79 Fed. Reg. at 59,941. The changes do not modify the definition of “matter in mitigation” found in R.C.M. 1001(c)(1)(B).

Other interesting proposed changes include:

Read more »

Some notable recent military justice scholarship

In volume 63 of the Naval Law Review, Commander Robert P. Monahan, Jr., JAGC, USN, writes A Proposal to Conform Military Rule of Evidence 305 in light of the Supreme Court’s Holdings in Maryland v. Shatzer and Berghuis v. Thompkins, 63 Naval L. Rev. 67 (2014). Commander Monahan proposes modifying MRE 305(e)(3)(A) to incorporate the 14-day break in custody requirement from Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 110 (2010); modifying MRE 305(c)(4) to require an unambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent drawn from Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 388-389 (2010); and modifying MRE 305(e)(1) and 305(e)(2) to permit implied waiver of the right to remain silent. This is a direct link to the beginning of the article in the complete volume of the Naval Law Review, hosted on the Navy’s website. This is a link to just the article, hosted on CAAFlog.

In the July volume of The Army Lawyer (link to full volume’s table of contents and articles), there are three notable articles:

  • Major Dane B. Getz, USAR, Closing the Gap in Access to Military Health Care Records: Mandating Civilian Compliance with the Military Command Exception to the HIPAA Privacy Rule, Army Law., July 2014, at 4 (direct link to article). Major Getz’s article reveals what I think is a disturbing institutionalized lack of respect for the protected nature of medical records. For example, the article considers a hypothetical situation where a “commander needs the NCO’s (non-commissioned officer’s] PHI [protected health information] as soon as possible to determine his continued fitness for duty and assess whether he may pose a danger to himself and others.” Id. at 5. Precisely what the commander (not a medical provider) will do with that information is unclear. Further, the article discusses the outrageous practice of issuing orders to Soldiers “to sign civilian medical release forms in their favor and/or turn over copies of their civilian PHI directly to commanders,” id. at 5 n.9, and labels Soldiers who wish to preserve their medical privacy as “medically non-compliant,” id. at 7 n.34.
  • Major Brent A. Goodwin, USA, Congress Offends Eisenhower and Cicero by Annihilating Article 60, UCMJ, Army Law., July 2014, at 23 (direct link to article). Major Goodwin’s articles discusses the changes to Article 60(c) in the FY14 NDAA and joins the debate over the meaning of the clemency limitations, ultimately agreeing with (though not discussing) my conclusion that in all cases the statute allows reduction of punishments that are not confinement for more than six months or a punitive discharge. Id. at 28. See this post.
  • Captain Jeremy R. Bedford, USA, Eligibility for VA Disability Compensation and Health Care Benefits for Army National Guardsmen Discharged with an Other Than Honorable Discharge, Army Law., July 2014, at 36 (direct link to article). Captain Bedford’s article concludes: “The interpretation of VA benefits eligibility in AR 135-178 needs to be revised to clarify that an ARNG’s [Army National Guard] OTH [administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions] will not affect the disability compensation and health care benefits to which Guardsman are entitled on the basis of a previous honorable active service deployment.” Id. at 39.

In the August volume of The Army Lawyer (link to full volume’s table of contents and articles), there are three notable articles:

  • Colonel James F. Garrett, USA, Colonel Mark “Max” Maxwell, USA, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew A. Calarco, USA, and Major Franklin D. Rosenblatt, USA, Lawful Command Emphasis: Talk Offense, Not Offender; Talk Process, Not Results, Army Law., August 2014, at 4 (direct link to article). The article coins a new term: lawful command emphasis. “Lawful command emphasis is, in short, the appropriate actions commanders or staff members can take within the military justice process to ensure good order and discipline is maintained within the ranks.” Id. at 6.
  • Major Matthew E. Wright, USA, A Distinction with a Difference: Rule for Courts-Martial 304 Pretrial Restraint and Speedy Trial, Army Law., August 2014, at 22 (direct link to article). Major Wright’s article discusses “the spectrum of restraint [that] begins with no restraint and progresses through conditions on liberty, restriction, arrest, restriction tantamount to confinement, and finally, confinement. A progressively onerous array of collateral consequences linked to the severity of the restraint imposed provides strong incentives for commanders to remain as close to the beginning of this spectrum as possible.” Id. at 25.
  • Colonel James W. Herring, Jr., USA, A View from the Bench: Make the Routine, Routine (U.S. Army Legal Services Agency Trial Judiciary Note), Army Law., August 2014, at 41 (direct link to article). Colonel Harring’s article discusses issues with specifications (i.e., the specifications on the charge sheet), script (i.e., the trial guide), and suspenses (i.e., deadlines).

The Navy’s erroneous interpretation of the revised Article 60(c)

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) made numerous changes to the UCMJ (analysis available here). Among those changes was section 1702(b) of the NDAA, revising Article 60(c) to limit a convening authority’s ability to modify either the findings or the sentence of a court-martial. This section was the focus of my analysis published earlier this month by LexisNexis (available at 2014 Emerging Issues 7217).

The revised Article 60(c)(2)(B) states that “except as provided in paragraph (4), the convening authority or another person authorized to act under this section may approve, disapprove, commute, or suspend the sentence of the court-martial in whole or in part.” This allows a convening authority to modify the adjudged sentence, with certain limits. The limits are provided in Article 60(c)(4)(A), which states:

Except as provided in subparagraph (B) or (C), the convening authority or another person authorized to act under this section may not disapprove, commute, or suspend in whole or in part an adjudged sentence of confinement for more than six months or a sentence of dismissal, dishonorable discharge, or bad conduct discharge.

My Emerging Issues Analysis discusses why this language limits a convening authority’s power for only the adjudged punishments of (1) confinement for more than six months and (2) a punitive discharge, leaving a convening authority free to modify any other adjudged punishment in any case. So, for example, when an accused is sentenced to confinement for one year and a $5,000 fine, the statute permits suspension of the fine (because it is not “an adjudged sentence of confinement for more than six months or a sentence of [punitive discharge]” ).

But the Secretary of the Navy recently took the opposite position in ALNAV 051/14, promulgating guidance that I believe is both erroneous and unlawful.

Read more »

A personal note

A brief personal update: I left active duty on July 1 and moved to Massachusetts with my wife and two children. I remain in the Marine Corps Reserve. I’ve been busy setting up the household and preparing for civilian practice. More news on that to come.

I will continue blogging. In fact, I’m planning to do a lot of writing about military justice issues in the coming months. For example, here is a link to my analysis of the new Article 60(c) (the convening authority’s clemency power for offenses committed on or after June 24, 2014) published as part of the LexisNexis Emerging Issues Analysis series, 2014 Emerging Issues 7217.

NIMJ Submission to the Military Justice Review Group

Here is a link to Global Military Justice Reform’s post of the June 30, 2014, NIMJ submission to the Military Justice Review Group (UPDATE:  Here is the full submission).  Here is a link to the nearly empty webpage of the Military Justice Review Group being run by the DoD OGC.  As we mentioned the MJRG isn’t subject to FACA so there is no transparency requirement, but I have to say that the webpage is still pretty bad even for that low bar.

I am sure Zee will be happy see recommendation #7:

Bring the varied definitions of a “victim,” implemented in the 2013 changes to the UCMJ, into consonance as detailed in CAAFLog’s analysis of the 2013 changes.

There are five different definitions of the term “victim” in these changes, in Article 6(b), Article 32, Article 46(b), Article 60(d), and the new 10 U.S.C. § 1044e (the SVC statute).  See Zachary D Spilman’s comments: 2013 Changes to the UCMJ – Part 6: Practice notes,  available at http://www.caaflog.com/2014/01/10/2013-changes-to-the-ucmj-part-6-practice-notes/ .

My personal favorite, is #13:

13)  Amend R.C.M. 806 or 808 to provide for public and media access to court-martial pleadings and rulings in a timely fashion through adoption of the PACER system or its equivalent.  Such a system would promote transparency and would allow public and media access to court-martial proceedings in a timely fashion, goals that would enhance public understanding and confidence in the administration of military justice.

Considering the effective date for the new Article 60(d) – NDAA Sec. 1706: “Participation by victim in clemency phase of courts-martial process”

In part five of my six part series about the military justice reforms in the FY14 NDAA, I discussed sections 1702 and 1706 of the NDAA (complete NDAA text available in Word here and in PDF here). Both of these sections made changes to Article 60, which gives the convening authority the power to act on the findings and sentence of a court-martial. Section 1702(b) of the NDAA completely rewrote Article 60(c) of the UCMJ, implementing major changes that limit a convening authority’s previously-unlimited power to disapprove a finding of guilty or reduce a sentence. Section 1706 of the NDAA created a new Article 60(d) that gives “a victim” the opportunity to submit matters to the convening authority before the convening authority takes action on the results of the court-martial.

Within section 1702 is express language making it effective 180 after enactment. But section 1706 does not include such language. Because of this, I made the following statement in part five of my series:

The change to Article 60(c) won’t take effect for six months, but Congress also created a new Article 60(d) in Section 1706 of the NDAA. The new Article 60(d) is effective immediately, and it gives “a victim” the opportunity to submit matters to the convening authority before the convening authority takes action on the results of the court-martial.

I’ve since learned of an alternative interpretation that reads the NDAA to make both sections 1702 and 1706 effective 180 days after enactment. I suspect that this interpretation is based on the fact that at the beginning of section 1706 are the words “…as amended by section 1702…,” and that the alternative interpretation reads this language to incorporate the effective date from section 1702 into section 1706. But for the following reasons I respectfully disagree with this interpretation, and I maintain my belief that Congress intended a victim to have the right to submit matters immediately.

Read more »

2013 Changes to the UCMJ – Part 6: Practice notes

This is part six of a series of posts discussing the military justice reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, signed into law by the President on December 26, 2013. The full series is available at this link.

After working through the military justice provisions in the NDAA and writing this series of posts, it’s clear that the first practice note is that it’s important for you to read the new provisions for yourself. It’s worth at least skimming all 38 military justice provisions from the NDAA in this bookmarked PDF. I also recommend using our Word version of the UCMJ, and reading in full:

  • Article 6b (“Rights of the victim…”). Also check out the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771).
  • The future Article 32 (discussed in this post).
  • The new Article 46 (discussed in this post).
  • The future Article 60(c) and the new Article 60(d) already in effect (discussed in this post).
  • The future Article 56 (sex offense mandatory minimums) and Article 18 (jurisdiction for the mandatory minimums).

I think that there are more potential pitfalls for prosecutors than for defense counsel in the new rules. For starters, prosecutors need to be more cautious when making charging decisions. Charging the most serious sex offenses will implicate the mandatory minimums and the restrictions on the convening authority’s ability to reduce a sentence, even when there is a PTA. They will also invoke the requirement for review if not referred to trial. A victim named in a specification will have the option to refuse to participate in the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and the VWAP process will likely get more attention now that victims shall have an opportunity to submit post-trial matters. The trial counsel must also affirmatively act to invoke the victim-interview provisions of Article 46(b).

But there’s plenty of danger for defense counsel, who will need to get more creative in presenting a case under the future Article 32. And the mandatory minimums are hard to avoid, even when the accused pleads guilty, unless the plea is to a lesser offense that doesn’t have a minimum. There’s also the issue of the recommendation from a trial counsel for sentence reduction in recognition of substantial assistance. Such a recommendation isn’t required in a case with a pretrial agreement and no mandatory minimum sentence, but it’s going to be a distinguishing feature of a deserving accused. Wherever the facts support such a recommendation, defense counsel should try to get it, perhaps as a term of the PTA. And the defense has to tread carefully around the victim-interview provisions of Article 46 (for now, at least).

Both sides will get much more familiar with the deposition rules once victims can refuse to participate in an Article 32. And both sides will have to watch out for pitfalls from the provisions that don’t take effect until the future and apply only to offenses committed on or after their effective date (Articles 32 and 60(c), and the mandatory minimums). The normal practice of combining all known offenses into a single court-martial will create situations where two separate versions of the Code to apply to a single case. For example, offenses committed in November, 2014, and in January, 2015, and destined for the same general court-martial, will require two separate Article 32 proceedings (one an “investigation” of the November offenses, and the other a “preliminary hearing” on the January offenses). Similar difficulties will arise late this summer, when convening authorities start acting on cases that both pre- and post-date the new Article 60(c).

Read more »

2013 Changes to the UCMJ – Part 5: Post-trial matters

This is part five of a series of posts discussing the military justice reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, signed into law by the President on December 26, 2013. The full series is available at this link.

In prior posts of this series I discussed aspects of military law, such as discovery rules and the pretrial investigation, that developed a century ago. Command discretion is another ancient part of our law. But the “Elimination of Unlimited Command Prerogative and Discretion” in Section 1702(b) of the FY14 NDAA isn’t the first time Congress has restricted a commander’s ability to modify the findings and sentence of a court-martial. Rather, it’s merely the first time Congress has done so to the possible detriment of an accused.

During congressional hearings in 1919, Major General Enoch H. Crowder, The Judge Advocate General of the Army, discussed regulations that actually permitted a commander to return a case for reconsideration of an acquittal or to increase a sentence (link to transcript). General Crowder presented Congress with a review of 1,000 cases, of which 56 were returned to the members for reconsideration of acquittals. Of these 56 cases, an acquittal was changed to a conviction in a whopping 18 (one third). This provoked popular outcry and press attention, and in 1920 Congress revised Article 40 of the Articles of War to expressly prohibit returning a record for reconsideration of an acquittal or increasing the severity of a sentence (old text) (new text) (and this prohibition still exists within Article 60).

Popular and press outrage is now focused on the exact opposite scenario: Lieutenant General Franklin’s action that changed a conviction into an acquittal in the Wilkerson case (our #5 story of 2013). And just as Congress removed the ability to change an acquittal into a conviction or increase a sentence in 1920, Congress now limits a commander’s ability to reverse a conviction or reduce a sentence.

In Section 1702(b) (that will not take effect until June 24, 2014 – 180 days after enactment) Congress rewrites Article 60(c) of the UCMJ to limit a convening authority’s ability to modify either the findings or the sentence of a court-martial. Current law permits a convening authority to set aside any finding of guilty, either entirely or by substituting a finding of guilty to a lesser included offense. It also gives the convening authority unlimited discretion to disapprove any part or all of a sentence. But the future law allows modification of the findings or sentence only in certain cases.

The full text of the future Article 60(c) follows:

Read more »

2013 Changes to the UCMJ – Part 1: Overview

This is part one of a series of posts discussing the military justice reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, signed into law by the President on December 26, 2013. The full series is available at this link.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 is a big piece of legislation. Contained within the 1,106 page bill are 38 sections addressing a variety of military justice issues. I’ve excerpted all 38 of these sections into a document with a table of contents (Word version available here) (PDF version available here).

From these 38 military justice sections I’ve identified the most important 15. They are: The eight sections that make ten changes to the UCMJ (two sections each make two changes), and five other sections that will significantly impact court-martial prosecutions.

The ten changes to the Code are:

§ 531. Modification of eligibility for appointment as Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
§ 1701. Extension of crime victims’ rights to victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
§ 1702(a). Revision of Article 32 (Use of Preliminary Hearings).
§ 1702(b). Revision of Article 60(c) (Elimination of Unlimited Command Prerogative and Discretion).
§ 1703. Elimination of five-year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for additional offenses involving sex-related crimes.
§ 1704. Defense counsel interview of victim of an alleged sex-related offense in presence of trial counsel, counsel for the victim, or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate.
§ 1705(a). Discharge or dismissal for certain sex-related offenses.
§ 1705(b). Trial of such offenses by general courts-martial.
§ 1706. Participation by victim in clemency phase of courts-martial process.
§ 1707. Repeal of the offense of consensual sodomy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Of these ten sections and subsections, four do not take effect until the future. These are:

  • The new Art. 32 (effective Dec. 27, 2014);
  • The new Art. 60(c) (effective Jun. 24, 2014);
  • The mandatory minimums for sex offenses (effective Jun. 24, 2014); and
  • The requirement for trial by general court-martial for the sex offenses with mandatory minimums (effective Jun. 24, 2014).

I’ve updated our Word document version of the UCMJ to include all of the new Code provisions (there are annotations for the provisions effective in the future). I’ve also significantly reformatted the document and added a linked table of contents.

The other five sections likely to have significant impact on court-martial prosecutions are:

§ 1708. Modification of Manual for Courts-Martial to eliminate factor relating to character and military service of the accused in rule on initial disposition of offenses.
§ 1716. Designation and availability of Special Victims’ Counsel for victims of sex-related offenses.
§ 1744. Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sex-related offenses for trial by court-martial.
§ 1752. Sense of Congress on disposition of charges involving certain sexual misconduct offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice through courts-martial.
§ 1753. Sense of Congress on the discharge in lieu of court-martial of members of the Armed Forces who commit sex-related offenses.

Over the rest of this week I will discuss all 15 of these provisions in this series of posts, as follows:

  • Part 1: Overview (this post). CAAF eligibility change (§531).
  • Part 2: Preferral-stage changes. Victims rights (§1701), SVC statute (§1716), statute of limitations (§1703), mandatory minimums (§1705(a) and (b)), repeal of consensual sodomy (§1707), and initial disposition factors (§1708).
  • Part 3: Discovery. Changes to Art. 46 (§1704).
  • Part 4: Article 32. The new Art. 32 (§1702(a)), review of decisions not to refer sex-related offenses to trial (§1744), and sense of Congress provisions (§1752 and §1753).
  • Part 5: Post-trial matters. The new Art 60(c) (§1702(b)) and Article 60(d) ((§1706).
  • Part 6: Practice notes. Thoughts on how these new provisions will affect pretrial negotiations, trial practice, and post-trial actions.

Below is a discussion of the first change to the Code: The CAAF eligibility change.

Read more »