CAAFlog » Article 62 Appeals

CAAF decided the interlocutory Army case of United States v. Hendrix, 77 M.J. 454, No. 18-0133/AR (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), on Tuesday, June 19, 2018. Rejecting the military judge’s conclusion that a dismissal of charges (followed shortly by a re-preferral) was a subterfuge to avoid the regulatory (R.C.M. 707) speedy trial right, CAAF finds no speedy trial violation and reverses the military judge’s decision that dismissed the charges with prejudice, affirming the decision of the Army CCA.

Judge Sparks writes for a unanimous court.

The accused, Private (E-2) Hendrix, was charged on November 29, 2016, with two specifications of sexual assault. The alleged victim declined to participate in any prosecution, and the convening authority dismissed the charges. But then – three days later – the alleged victim changed her mind and the charges were re-preferred one day after that. Hendrix was then arraigned on June 8, 2017; 156 days after the first preferral.

That arraignment exceeded the 120-day deadline in R.C.M. 707. Hendrix moved to dismiss, and the military judge granted the motion and dismissed the specification with prejudice after concluding that the convening authority’s dismissal of the original charges was a subterfuge. But the prosecution appealed and the Army CCA reversed, concluding that the dismissal was not a subterfuge because it was based on the alleged victim’s unwillingness-turned-willingness to participate. CAAF then granted review to determine:

Whether the military judge abused his discretion by dismissing the charge and specifications with prejudice for a violation of R.C.M. 707.

He did, explains Judge Sparks, because “dismissal and repreferral are fully permissible under the provisions of R.C.M. 707.” Slip op. at 5. As for the alleged victim’s vacillating willingness to participate, the court finds that this actually supported the convening authority’s action, because “the fact that the complaining witness changed her mind about testifying dramatically changed the strength of the Government’s case.” Slip op. at 6.

Read more »

CAAF will hear oral argument in the interlocutory Army case of United States v. Hendrix, No. 18-0133/AR (CAAFlog case page), on Tuesday, May 1, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. The court granted review to determine:

Whether the military judge abused his discretion by dismissing the charge and specifications with prejudice for a violation of R.C.M. 707.

“There are a number of sources of the right to a speedy trial in the military: (1) statute of limitations; (2) Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (3) Sixth Amendment speedy-trial guarantee; (4) Articles 10 and 33 of the [UCMJ]; (5) RCM 707, [Manual for Courts-Martial]; and (6) case law.” United States v. Reed, 41 M.J. 449, 451 (C.A.A.F. 1995). These sources broadly fall into three categories: Constitutional, statutory, and regulatory. This case involves the regulatory, R.C.M. 707, speedy trial right.

The accused, Private (E-2) Hendrix, was charged with two specifications of sexual assault on November 29, 2016. The alleged victim declined to participate in any prosecution, and the convening authority dismissed the charges. But then – three days later – the alleged victim changed her mind and the charges were re-preferred one day after that. Hendrix was then arraigned on June 8, 2017; 156 days after the first preferral.

That arraignment exceeded the 120-day deadline in R.C.M. 707. Hendrix moved to dismiss, and the military judge granted the motion and dismissed the specification with prejudice after concluding that the convening authority’s dismissal of the original charges was a subterfuge. But the prosecution appealed and the Army CCA reversed, concluding that the dismissal was not a subterfuge because it was based on the alleged victim’s unwillingness-turned-willingness to participate. CAAF then agreed to consider the case.

Read more »

“There are a number of sources of the right to a speedy trial in the military: (1) statute of limitations; (2) Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (3) Sixth Amendment speedy-trial guarantee; (4) Articles 10 and 33 of the [UCMJ]; (5) RCM 707, [Manual for Courts-Martial]; and (6) case law.” United States v. Reed, 41 M.J. 449, 451 (C.A.A.F. 1995). These sources broadly fall into three categories: Constitutional, statutory, and regulatory.

On Monday CAAF granted review of an Army prosecution appeal under Article 62 involving the regulatory, R.C.M. 707, speedy trial right:

No. 18-0133/AR. U.S. v. James B. Hendrix. CCA 20170439. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE CHARGE AND SPECIFICATIONS WITH PREJUDICE FOR A VIOLATION OF R.C.M. 707.

Pursuant to Rule 19(a)(7)(A), no further pleadings will be filed.

The Army CCA’s opinion is probably posted on the CCA’s website, but the website is inaccessible from the public internet (discussed here). The opinion is, however, available on Lexis at: United States v. Hendrix, 2017 CCA LEXIS 769 (A Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 14, 2017) (Lexis erroneously identifies this as an Air Force CCA case).

The accused, Private (E-2) Hendrix, was charged with two specifications of sexual assault on November 29, 2016. The alleged victim declined to participate in any prosecution, and the convening authority dismissed the charges. But then – three days later – the alleged victim changed her mind and the charges were re-preferred. Hendrix was then arraigned on June 8, 2017; 156 days after the first preferral.

Read more »

With a published decision in United States v. Kokuev, __ M.J. __, No. 201700216 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 8, 2017) (link to slip op.), a three-judge panel of the NMCCA denies an interlocutory prosecution appeal of a military judge’s rulings denying a request to sever the attorney-client relationship between the accused and his detailed military defense counsel, and denying a prosecution request to recall a witness.

The CCA finds that it lacks jurisdiction to review the request to sever the attorney-client relationship, and that the military judge did nor err in denying the prosecution request to recall a witness.

Read more »

CAAF decided the certified Army case of United States v. Jacobsen, 77 M.J. 81, No. 17-0408/AR (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), on Monday, December 11, 2017. Answering only the discrete question presented in the JAG’s certification, a majority of CAAF holds that a trial counsel’s certification does not conclusively establish appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory prosecution appeal.

Judge Ryan writes for the court, joined by Chief Judge Stucky, Judge Ohlson, and Judge Sparks. Senior Judge Cox dissents.

The case is an interlocutory appeal in an ongoing general court-martial involving an alleged sexual offense. Sergeant First Class (E-7) Jacobsen is the accused, and his defense includes a focus on the alleged victim’s lack of credibility. The prosecution wants to introduce a prior statement of the alleged victim to rehabilitate her credibility, but the military judge prohibited it from doing so. The prosecution then appealed that ruling.

Article 62 authorizes interlocutory appeals under limited circumstances. One of them is when a military judge issues “an order or ruling which excludes evidence that is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.” Article 62(a)(1)(B). The prosecution filed such an appeal, and the trial counsel certified “that the evidence excluded is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.” Article 62(a)(2).

But the Army CCA found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because, despite the trial counsel’s certification, the CCA concluded that the military judge did not exclude evidence that is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding. The Judge Advocate General of the Army then certified a single issue to CAAF:

Whether the trial counsel’s certification that evidence is “substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding” is conclusive for purposes of establishing appellate jurisdiction under Article 62(a)(1)(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Yesterday’s opinion answers this question with a no. A majority of CAAF adopts the reasoning of the Army CCA that because interlocutory appeals are allowed only when the case “actually meet[s] specified criteria,” slip op. at 4 (quoting CCA opinion), “the ACCA had to satisfy itself that it had appellate jurisdiction before proceeding to review the merits of the appeal,” slip op. at 5. As the lone dissenting voice, however, Senior Judge Cox “see[s] no reason in military practice for an application of Article 62, UCMJ, that second guesses the trial counsel’s certification as to the impact that excluding evidence has upon its ability to successfully try its case.” Diss. op. at 3.

Read more »

CAAF decided the interlocutory Air Force case of United States v. Pugh, 77 M.J. 1, No. 17-0306/AF (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), on November 7, 2017. Reviewing the blanket prohibition on consuming hemp products in Air Force instruction 90-507, paragraph 1.1.6., a unanimous CAAF finds that while the prohibition “may have a valid military purpose, it is overly, and inappropriately, broad as it pertains to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved food products.” Slip op. at 2. The Air Force CCA’s decision is reversed and the military judge’s ruling dismissing the charge is reinstated, with prejudice.

Judge Sparks writes for the unanimous court.

A general court-martial composed of officer members convicted Major (O-4) Pugh of:

willful dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 892, by consuming Strong and Kind bars, a product containing hemp seeds, which is prohibited by AFI 90-507.

United States v. Pugh, No. 2016-11, slip op. at 2 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 10, 2017) (discussed here). Pugh was acquitted of a separate allegation of wrongful use of marijuana. The members sentenced Pugh to be dismissed.

After the findings were announced, the defense moved to dismiss the specification asserting that AFI 90-507 is unlawful. The military judge reserved ruling, but ultimately granted the motion and then denied a prosecution motion for reconsideration. The Government appealed to the CCA, which reversed the military judge’s dismissal. CAAF then granted review of a single issue:

Whether the military judge erred in finding that AFI 90-507 serves no valid military purpose and dismissing the additional charge and its specification.

Today’s opinion is short and fact-specific, with Judge Sparks explaining that “banning legal, properly labeled food products well regulated by the United States government under the guise of protecting airmen from unlabeled, unregulated, illegal food products is well beyond the Government’s stated purpose for the ban.” Slip op. at 5.

Read more »

CAAF heard oral argument in the interlocutory Air Force case of United States v. Mangahas, No. 17-0434/AF (CAAFlog case page), on October 11. The court granted review after the Air Force CCA reversed the military judge’s ruling that dismissed the charge of rape – alleged to have occurred in 1997 – with prejudice. The military judge found a violation of the accused’s Fifth Amendment (due process) right to a speedy trial based on the 18-year delay in charging the accused and the death of a witness.

During the oral argument there were a few questions about the statute of limitations, which is either five years or unlimited depending on whether death was an authorized punishment for rape in 1997.

In an order issued yesterday, CAAF requested briefing on the applicable statute of limitations:

No. 17-0434/AF. U.S. v. Edzel D. Mangahas. CCA 2016-10. On further consideration of the record, it is ordered that the parties shall brief the following issue specified by the Court:

IN LIGHT OF COKER V. GEORGIA, 433 U.S. 584, 598 (1977), AND UNITED STATES V. HICKSON, 22 M.J. 146, 154 n.10 (C.M.A. 1986), WAS THE OFFENSE OF RAPE OF AN ADULT WOMAN, A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 120, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920 (SUPP. II 1997), A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY DEATH WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 43, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 843 (1994)?

The parties will brief this issue contemporaneously, and file their briefs on or before November 14, 2017. Reply briefs on this issue may be filed on or before November 27, 2017.

Footnote 10 in Hickson read, in significant part:

The Uniform Code and many state penal codes authorize death sentences for rape; but in the absence of aggravating circumstances, such punishment cannot be constitutionally inflicted. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 97 S. Ct. 2861, 53 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1977).

We discussed this issue back in 2012, in this post. That was something of a follow-up to this post, where Dwight Sullivan reported that the Supreme Court overlooked the UCMJ when it reviewed the law governing the maximum sentence for rape of a child in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008). That post was picked up by the New York Times, and prompted petitions for a rehearing in the case (that was ultimately denied).

In an unpublished opinion in a prosecution appeal under Article 62, a three-judge panel of the Army CCA finds that “when the government concedes an issue [of law] at trial and the military judge accepts the concession, then the government cannot complain to this court that the military judge erred.” United States v. Suarez, No. 20170366, slip op. at 7 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sep 27, 2017) (link to slip op.).

At stake is the admission of six images of suspected child pornography discovered on the accused’s cell phone after it was searched pursuant to an authorization. The device was protected by a passcode and the investigators asked the accused for that passcode. So the defense moved to suppress. See, generally, United States v. Mitchell, 76 M.J. 413 (C.A.A.F. Aug. 30, 2017) (CAAFlog case page).

Responding to the defense motion, the prosecutors “conceded in their initial brief to the military judge that the accused’s providing a passcode to a CID agent was testimonial and incriminating.” Slip op. at 4. These were significant concessions, because “in conceding the passcode was incriminating, the government necessarily conceded the request for the incriminating response was an interrogation.” Slip op. at 5. And because it was an interrogation, the questioning implicated the accused’s rights under the 5th Amendment and Article 31(b). So the military judge suppressed the images.

The prosecution appealed, “mak[ing] numerous arguments as to why the military judge erred.” Slip op. at 3.

But the panel doesn’t consider those arguments. Rather, it holds that “the substantive issue of this appeal was waived by the government at trial.” Slip op. at 8.

Read more »

CAAF will end its first week of oral arguments in the 2017 term on Wednesday, October 11, 2017, when it hears argument in the interlocutory Air Force case of United States v. Pugh, No. 17-0306/AF (CAAFlog case page). Pugh is a particularly interesting case because it is an interlocutory appeal of a ruling dismissing a charge after the members returned findings of guilty and a sentence. CAAF granted review of a single issue:

Whether the military judge erred in finding that AFI 90-507 serves no valid military purpose and dismissing the additional charge and its specification.

A general court-martial composed of officer members convicted Major Pugh of:

willful dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 892, by consuming Strong and Kind bars, a product containing hemp seeds, which is prohibited by AFI 90-507.

United States v. Pugh, No. 2016-11, slip op. at 2 (Mar. 10, 2017) (discussed here). AFI 90-507 is the Military Drug Demand Reduction Program order. It prohibits, among other things, consumption of any product containing hemp seed or hemp seed oil.

Defense counsel moved to dismiss after findings, arguing that the specification failed to state an offense and that the order was unlawful. The military judge reserved ruling. The members then sentenced Pugh to a dismissal and the court-martial was adjourned. Nineteen days later the military judge granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that “there is not a sufficient nexus between military necessity and the duty AFI 90-507 seeks to impose. The regulation is overly broad and serves no valid military purpose.” Slip op. at 3.

The prosecution appealed and the Air Force CCA reversed, finding that “it was error for the military judge to conclude that there was an insufficient nexus between the military duty and the integrity and effectiveness of the drug testing program.” Slip op. at 6. Pugh then petitioned CAAF for review.

Pugh’s reply brief include this nice summary of the issue:

The parties agree that the military duty in question is the necessity to protect the reliability and integrity of the drug testing program. App. Br. at 6; Govt. Br. at 20. Thus, the question for this Court is whether banning legally available commercial food products sold in the United States is reasonably necessary to protect the reliability and integrity of the drug testing program. See Para. 14c(2)(a), Part IV, MCM (2012 ed.) (regulation of activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission) (emphasis added).

Reply. Br. at 6.

Read more »

CAAF will hear oral argument in the interlocutory Air Force case of United States v. Mangahas, No. 17-0434/AF (CAAFlog case page), on Wednesday, October 11, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. Mangahas is a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force charged with a single specification of rape alleged to have occurred in 1997, when Mangahas was a cadet at the Coast Guard Academy. The alleged victim was a fellow cadet who reported her allegation at the time but did not participate in an investigation. However, she made a new report in 2014 (to the Department of Veterans Affairs), a new investigation was initiated, and the charge was preferred in October 2015; eighteen years after the alleged offense.

The passage of so much time prompted a defense motion to dismiss based on violation of Mangahas’ Fifth Amendment (due process) right to a speedy trial. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to egregious or intentional tactical pretrial delay by the prosecution where there is actual prejudice to the accused. See United States v. Reed, 41 M.J. 449, 452 (C.A.A.F. 1995). This is a difficult burden for an accused to meet.

A military judge, however, found both: egregious delay in the nearly two decades between the time the alleged victim made a report and the time Mangahas was brought to trial, and prejudice in the death of a Coast Guard Academy counselor – identified by the initials PM –  who the alleged victim claims discouraged her from participating in the investigation back in 1997. Then, because this violated the Due Process Clause, the military judge dismissed the charge with prejudice (meaning Mangahas may never be tried).

The prosecution appealed and a three-judge panel of the Air Force CCA reversed, finding that “the actual substance of what PM’s trial testimony would be is speculative,” and that “even assuming that PM were to directly rebut [the alleged victim], the absence of that testimony, as discussed above, does not deny Appellee the ability to mount an effective defense.” United States v. Mangahas, Misc. Dkt. No. 2016-10, slip op at 11-12 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Ap. 4., 2017) (discussed here). Mangahas then appealed to CAAF, and the court granted review of a single issue:

Whether the lower court erred in finding no due process violation when the Government was inactive for over 17 years before investigating a claim of rape, violating LtCol Mangahas’ Fifth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

Read more »

CAAF will hear the first oral argument of the 2017 term on Tuesday, October 10, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in the certified Army case of United States v. Jacobsen, No. 17-0408/AR (CAAFlog case page). A single issue challenges the Army CCA’s rejection of an interlocutory prosecution appeal under Article 62, UCMJ:

Whether the trial counsel’s certification that evidence is “substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding” is conclusive for purposes of establishing appellate jurisdiction under Article 62(a)(1)(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The case is a general court-martial involving an alleged sexual offense. Sergeant First Class (E-7) Jacobsen is the accused, and his defense includes a focus on the alleged victim’s lack of credibility. Jacobsen’s defense counsel gave an opening statement that promised the members that “over the course of this trial you’re going to hear that [the alleged victim] has told five different stories about what happened on that couch on the evening of Valentine’s Day of this year going into the 15th of February.” Gov’t Div. Br. at 2. Then, on cross-examination of the alleged victim, the defense elicited evidence of numerous prior inconsistent statements about the alleged offense. In response, the prosecution:

sought to call a CID special agent to testify to the victim’s prior consistent statements under Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(ii). The defense objected.

The military judge ruled that M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) does not apply in this case and that the Government could not admit the victim’s CID statement as rehabilitation evidence. The Government appealed his decision under Article 62, UCMJ.

Gov’t Div. Br. at 3 (citations to record omitted). Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) is part of the hearsay rule and is identical to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B). The federal rule was amended in 2014 in a way that makes any prior consistent statements of a witness non-hearsay, so long as the prior statement is otherwise admissible for rehabilitation (discussed here). The amendment was incorporated into the MCM in 2016 (noted here). The amendment did not, however, change what statements are otherwise admissible to rehabilitate a witness. See Fed. R. Evid. 801 advisory committee note to the 2014 amendment. See also United States v. Adams, 63 M.J. 691, 696-97 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2006) (discussing circumstances when prior consistent statements are relevant).

Article 62 authorizes a prosecution appeal under certain, limited circumstances. One of them is of “an order or ruling which excludes evidence that is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.” Article 62(a)(1)(B). Based on this authorization, the prosecution appealed the military judge’s ruling that prohibited the CID agent from testifying about the alleged victim’s prior statements.

But the Army CCA did not address the admissibility of the CID agent’s testimony. Rather, it rejected the prosecution’s appeal as unauthorized under Article 62. In a short order the CCA dismissed the appeal, concluding:

Contrary to appellant’s claim, the military judge did not issue “[a]n order or ruling which excludes evidence that is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.” UCMJ art. 62(a)(l)(B) (emphasis added). Although Congress intended to provide military prosecutors, to the extent practicable, with the same rights of appeal afforded to federal civilian prosecutors in 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (i.e., the right to appeal trial rulings dismissing charges or excluding substantive evidence), the jurisdictional language codified by Congress in Article 62, UCMJ, differs from 18 U.S.C. § 3731. See United States v. Lopez de Victoria, 66 M.J. 67, 68-71 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (explaining the general intent of Congress in enacting Article 62, UCMJ).

Specifically, the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3731 confers appellate jurisdiction over trial orders suppressing evidence, only conditioned upon timely certification from the United States attorney. United States v. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 505-06 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). In contrast, the plain language of Article 62(a)(1), UCMJ, confers appellate jurisdiction for orders or rulings that actually meet specified criteria.

United States v. Jacobsen, No. 20160768, slip op. at 1 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 6, 2017) (order) (marks in original) (discussed here). The Government Appellate Division sought reconsideration and the CCA reached the same conclusion on March 16, 2017, again highlighting the different language of the civil and military statutes.

The JAG then certified the case to CAAF to determine whether a CCA may determine that a prosecution appeal does not meet the Article 62 criteria despite a trial counsel’s certification that it does.

Read more »

In United States v. Bruno, No. 2017-03 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 23, 2017) (link to slip op.), a three-judge panel of the Air Force CCA reverses a military judge’s ruling suppressing the results of a urinalysis, agreeing with the prosecution that:

Appellee’s second urinalysis was taken in accordance with a standing inspection order issued by the installation commander and minor deviations in the execution of the policy did not mandate suppression.

Slip op. at 2.

The accused – Second Lieutenant (O-1) Bruno – tested positive for methamphetamine on a random urinalysis, and then tested positive a second time on a follow-up urinalysis. The military judge suppressed the results of the second urinalysis after finding that it was the product of an interrogation by AFOSI (that was also suppressed). But the CCA finds that the second urinalysis was the product of a standing order that required follow-up urinalysis any time a member tests positive on a random urinalysis (a Bickel policy, named after United States v. Bickel, 30 M.J. 277, 287 (C.M.A. 1990), in which the court observed that “it was quite rational for Bickel’s company commander to determine whether any member of his unit who had tested positive on one occasion–and so was indicated by the test to be unfit for military duty–had corrected his substandard condition”).

Read more »

CAAF decided the certified interlocutory Army case of United States v. Mitchell, 76 M.J. 413,No. 17-0153/AR (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), on August 30, 2017. Because continued questioning of a suspect after he invokes his right to counsel violates the Fifth Amendment, CAAF finds that the contents of a cell phone must be suppressed because military investigators requested the passcode to decrypt the phone after the suspect requested an attorney. The phone itself, however, need not be suppressed. CAAF affirms (in part) the decision of the Army CCA and of the military judge suppressing the contents of the phone.

Chief Judge Stucky writes for the court joined by all but Judge Ryan, who dissents.

Sergeant (E-5) Mitchell is charged with various offenses at a general court-martial. The prosecution wants to use evidence obtained from Mitchell’s cell phone. But the military judge suppressed the contents of the phone (and the phone itself) because military investigators continued to question Mitchell after he requested an attorney. The investigators had a search authorization for the phone, and had asked Mitchell for the passcode to the device. Mitchell (after requesting counsel) refused to tell them the passcode, but he entered the code into the phone and then entered it two more times to permanently disable the security features for the investigators. The prosecution appealed the suppression ruling under Article 62, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the military judge’s ruling, and the Judge Advocate General of the Army certified three issues to CAAF:

I. Whether the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause is violated when a suspect voluntarily unlocks his phone without giving his personal identification number to investigators.

II. Whether the Edwards rule is violated when investigators ask a suspect, who has requested counsel and returned to his place of duty, to unlock his phone incident to a valid search authorization.

III. Whether, assuming investigators violated appellant’s Fifth Amendment privilege or the Edwards rule, the military judge erred by suppressing the evidence.

Concluding that “the Government violated [Mitchell’s] Fifth Amendment right to counsel as protected by [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)] and [Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981)],” slip op. at 5, Chief Judge Stucky and the majority apply the plain language of Mil. R. Evid. 305(c)(2) (as rewritten in 2013) to suppress the contents of the phone because it is evidence derived from the interrogation after Mitchell requested counsel.

But Judge Ryan dissents because Mitchell merely entered his passcode into the device while he “declined to state or otherwise speak his passcode to the Government. He declined. There is nothing to suppress there.” Diss. op. at 3.

Read more »

On May 20, 2016, the President signed Executive Order 13,730 (discussed here) that amended Mil. R. Evid. 311 to limit application of the exclusionary rule in the case of an unlawful search or seizure, requiring a balancing that weighs the deterrent effect of exclusion.

The prior (and longstanding) rule stated that “evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search or seizure made by a person acting in a governmental capacity is inadmissible against the accused” if the accused (1) makes a timely objection and (2) has an adequate privacy interest. Mil. R. Evid. 311(a) (2015). The new (current) rule adds a third requirement:

exclusion of the evidence results in appreciable deterrence of future unlawful searches or seizures and the benefits of such deterrence outweigh the costs to the justice system.

Mil. R. Evid. 311(a)(3) (2016).

In United States v. Mottino, No. 201700153 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jul. 27, 2017) (link to slip op.), a three-judge panel of the Navy-Marine Corps CCA grants a prosecution appeal and reverses a military judge’s ruling suppressing evidence because:

the military judge’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, but that her analysis and application of the law do not include the balancing test required under MIL. R. EVID. 311(a)(3).

Slip op. at 2.

Read more »

In the certified Army case of United States v. Mitchell, No. 17-0153/AR (CAAFlog case page), CAAF is considering the impact of investigators questioning a military suspect, after he invoked his right to remain silent and requested an attorney, in order to gain access to the suspect’s cell phone for a search. The case was argued at the Notre Dame Law School on Tuesday, April 4, 2017. It is one of just three remaining undecided cases argued during the October 2016 Term.

Back in June, in this post, I noted a pair of Air Force CCA decisions – one published and the other involving a Government appeal of a suppression ruling – that held that a “request for the passcode d[oes] not constitute interrogation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.” United States v. Robinson, 76 M.J. 663, 671, No. 38942, slip op. at 11 (A. F. Ct. Crim. App. May 15, 2017). See also United States v. Blatney, No. 2016-16, slip op. at 7 (A. F. Ct. Crim. App. May 22, 2017) (interlocutory appeal) (“In other words, whether agents or the suspect re-initiated communication only becomes relevant if the suspect ultimately communicated an incriminating statement to the agents.”).

The accused in Blatney (the interlocutory case) petitioned CAAF for review on June 14. Last Thursday CAAF granted review:

No. 17-0458/AF. U.S. v. Chad A. Blatney. CCA 2016-16. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION BY SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM APPELLANT’S CELLULAR PHONE, WHERE LAW ENFORCEMENT REQUESTED THAT APPELLANT ENTER HIS PASSWORD TWICE TO DECRYPT THE PHONE AND DISABLE SECURITY AFTER HE INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

Pursuant to Rule 19(a)(7)(A), no further pleadings will be file.

The post-trial appellant in Robinson petitioned CAAF for review on July 12, 2017. That petition is still pending.