United States v. Marcum

Last updated

United States of America v. Technical Sergeant Eric P. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004) is a United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) decision which, among other issues, upheld Article 125 (Sodomy) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice against a facial substantive due process challenge, and ruled that the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas , 539 U.S. 558 (2003) applied in analyzing as-applied challenges. The decision is thus binding precedent on all courts-martial in determining if an Article 125 prosecution is constitutional.

Contents

Case history

The appellant, United States Air Force Technical Sergeant Eric P. Marcum, a cryptologic linguist assigned to Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska, was tried by court-martial for "dereliction of duty by providing alcohol to individuals under the age of 21, non-forcible sodomy, forcible sodomy, assault consummated by a battery, indecent assault, and three specifications of committing indecent acts". On May 21, 2000, Marcum was convicted of several charges, including non-forcible sodomy in violation of Article 125. He was "sentenced to confinement for 10 years, a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The convening authority reduced the confinement to six years, but otherwise approved the findings and sentence". The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence. [1] [2] After that, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Lawrence. [3]

The CAAF the reviewed the following issues: [1]

ISSUE I
WHETHER APPELLANT SUFFERED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN HIS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL REVEALED PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS WITHOUT APPELLANT'S PERMISSION DURING THE SENTENCING PHASE OF APPELLANT'S TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF M.R.E. 502 AND 511.
ISSUE II
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY INSTRUCTING THE PANEL THAT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE IN APPELLANT'S CASE WAS LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAD NOT AUTHORIZED THAT PUNISHMENT FOR APPELLANT'S OFFENSES.
ISSUE III
WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING ARTICLE 125, UCMJ, BY ENGAGING IN CONSENSUAL SODOMY (CHARGE II, SPECIFICATION 1) MUST BE SET ASIDE IN LIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 123 S.CT. 2472 (2003).

Due process challenge

In deciding the due process challenge, the Court first addressed the facial constitutional claim, rejecting it on the bases that "[i]n the military setting, as this case demonstrates, an understanding of military culture and mission cautions against sweeping constitutional pronouncements that may not account for the nuance of military life" and that "because Article 125 addresses both forcible and non-forcible sodomy, a facial challenge reaches too far". Turning to the as-applied challenge, the Court asked "[f]irst, was the conduct that the accused was found guilty of committing of a nature to bring it within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court? Second, did the conduct encompass any behavior or factors identified by the Supreme Court as outside the analysis in Lawrence? ... Third, are there additional factors relevant solely in the military environment that affect the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest?" It then proceeded to reject the as-applied due process challenge, on the bases that "the military has consistently regulated relationships between servicemembers based on certain differences in grade in an effort to avoid partiality, preferential treatment, and the improper use of one's rank", that "this right [to engage in private sexual conduct] must be tempered in a military setting based on the mission of the military, the need for obedience of orders, and civilian supremacy", and that the appellant "also testified that he knew he should not engage in a sexual relationship with someone he supervised". Due to these factors, the "conduct fell outside the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court" and the challenge was rejected. [1] [4]

Privileged communication in sentencing

The Court ruled that the appellant had suffered a prejudicial error when his trial counsel presented an unsworn statement that had revealed privileged communications without the appellant's permission, on the basis that "[e]vidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged matter is not admissible against the holder of the privilege if disclosure was compelled erroneously or was made without an opportunity for the holder of the privilege to claim the privilege" and that he "did not waive his attorney-client privilege. Appellant's affidavit demonstrates that defense counsel never asked Appellant for permission to use the written summary", and that "trial counsel repeatedly referred to Appellant's unsworn statement during his sentencing argument" On this basis, the Court reversed the sentence, authorizing a sentencing rehearing. [1]

Sentencing instruction

The court said that "In light of our decision on Issue I, we need not decide whether life without parole was an authorized punishment for forcible sodomy at the time of Appellant's offenses." [1]

Concurrence and dissent

Chief Judge Crawford wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion. Concurring with the rejection of the due process challenge, the judge disagreed with the majority's assumption that the "Appellant's conduct falls within the protected liberty interest enunciated in Lawrence." Chief Judge Crawford dissented from the decision to reverse the sentence on the basis that "defense counsel displayed his and Appellant's intent to disclose the statement to a third party and, in so doing, established that the statement was not privileged", that because "defense counsel extensively used Appellant's statement at trial to cross-examine Government witnesses", "Appellant cannot now claim that attorney-client privilege should have prevented the statement's release", and that "Appellant, by his own misconduct, forfeited any right to object to counsel's use of the statement". [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto February 20, 1995- July 20, 1995. 2 S.C.R. 1130 was a libel case against the Church of Scientology, in which the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted Ontario's libel law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that most sanctions of criminal punishment for consensual, adult non-procreative sexual activity are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. It based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with private sexual decisions between consenting adults.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy. It was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), though the statute had already been struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sodomy laws in the United States</span> Aspect of United States law

Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were inherited from colonial laws in the 17th century. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes, in some cases even including acts between married persons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces</span> Federal tribunal for appeal of lower military courts

38.8958°N 77.0183°W

An Article 32 hearing is a proceeding under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, similar to that of a preliminary hearing in civilian law. Its name is derived from UCMJ section VII Article 32, which mandates the hearing.

Courts-martial of the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state militaries. Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the U.S. military for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They can also be convened for other purposes, including military tribunals and the enforcement of martial law in an occupied territory. Federal courts-martial are governed by the rules of procedure and evidence laid out in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), Military Rules of Evidence, and other guidance. State courts-martial are governed according to the laws of the state concerned. The American Bar Association has issued a Model State Code of Military Justice, which has influenced the relevant laws and procedures in some states.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with defendants' rights to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement. The court held that where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

The United States military formerly excluded gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians from service. In 1993, the United States Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed a law instituting the policy commonly referred to as "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) which allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to serve as long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation. Although there were isolated instances in which service personnel were met with limited success through lawsuits, efforts to end the ban on openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people serving either legislatively, or through the courts initially proved unsuccessful.

<i>Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc.</i>

Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 990 A.2d 650 (2010) was a New Jersey Supreme Court case that provided guidance to employees as to what extent they may expect privacy and confidentiality in personal e-mails composed on company-owned computers. Through its decision, the court ruled on two key issues which concluded that there should be a "reasonable" expectation of privacy in personal e-mails on company computers, and that attorney–client communication privileges and privacy should not be violated. On March 30, 2010, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision by overturning the previous ruling made by the trial court. The trial court previously determined that a company-created policy provided sufficient warning to employees that all communications and activities performed on company-owned computers were subject to review by the employer and that there should be no expectation of privacy because of such policies.

<i>Franklin v. State</i> Florida Supreme Court case decriminalizing sodomy

Franklin v. State, 257 So. 2d 21, was a case in which the Florida Supreme Court struck down Florida's sodomy law as being "unconstitutional for vagueness and uncertainty in its language, violating constitutional due process to the defendants." The court retained the state's prohibition on sodomy by ruling that anal and oral sex could still be prosecuted under the lesser charge of "unnatural and lascivious" conduct, thus reducing the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor.

<i>Cook v. Gates</i> American legal case

Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42, is a decision on July 9, 2008, of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that upheld the "Don't ask, Don't tell" (DADT) policy against due process and equal protection Fifth Amendment challenges and a free speech challenge under the First Amendment, and which found that no earlier Supreme Court decision held that sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification.

<i>Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children & Family Services</i> Court order denying homosexuals freedom to adopt children

Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children & Family Services, is a 2004 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upholding Florida's ban of adoption of children by homosexual persons as enforced by the Florida Department of Children and Families.

The Judge Advocate General's Corps, also known as JAG or JAG Corps, is the military justice branch or specialty of the United States Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps and Navy. Officers serving in the JAG Corps are typically called judge advocates.

<i>National Gay Task Force v. Board of Education</i> United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit case

National Gay Task Force v. Board of Education of the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 729 F.2d 1270, is a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that upheld in part, and struck down in part, a law allowing schools to fire teachers for public homosexual conduct. It was the first federal appellate court decision to deny that sexual orientation is a suspect classification. It was affirmed by an equally divided vote in the United States Supreme Court.

State v Quattlebaum is a 2000 decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court. The case is notable for having established the precedent that a defendant may, with restrictions, call the prosecuting attorney as a witness.

Unlawful command influence (UCI) is a legal concept within American military law. UCI occurs when a person bearing "the mantle of command authority" uses or appears to use that authority to influence the outcome of military judicial proceedings. Military commanders typically exert significant control over their units, but under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) a commander must take a detached, quasi-judicial stance towards certain disciplinary proceedings such as a court-martial. Outside of certain formal actions authorized by the UCMJ, a commander using their authority to influence the outcome of a court-martial commits UCI. If UCI has occurred, the results of a court-martial may be legally challenged and in some cases overturned.

Section 839(a) of title 10 United States Code § 925 - Article 125. is a punitive article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 United States v. Marcum, 60M.J.198 (C.A.A.F.2004). via armfor.uscourts.gov
  2. ↑ United States v. Marcum,No. ACM 34216, slip op.(A.F. Ct. Crim. App.July 25, 2002).
  3. ↑ Lawrence v. Texas , 539U.S.558, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003). via law.cornell.edu
  4. ↑ Janofsky, Michael (August 24, 2004). "In Limited Ruling, Court Upholds Military Ban on Sodomy". The New York Times . Retrieved July 12, 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.