This article needs additional citations for verification .(February 2012) |
The Judge Advocate General's Corps (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.
Judge advocates are responsible for administrative law, government contracting, civilian and military personnel law, the law of war and international relations, environmental law, etc. They also serve as prosecutors for the military when conducting courts-martial.
George Washington established the JAG Corps on July 29, 1775. Judge advocates were involved in writing and implementing Abraham Lincoln's General Orders No. 100: Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field, which was the first systematic code of the law of war in the United States. [1] [2]
Judge advocates serve primarily as legal advisors to the command to which they are assigned. In this function, they can also serve as the personal legal advisor to their commander. They are charged with both the defense and prosecution of military law as provided in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Highly experienced officers of the JAG Corps often serve as military judges in courts-martial and courts of inquiry.
The services also have enlisted soldiers with specific paralegal training that provide support to judge advocates, although accession and scope of duty are also branch-specific. For example, the U.S. Army permits new recruits to become judge advocate enlisted, while the U.S. Navy does not. In addition to acting as paralegals to military attorneys, JAG enlisted often provide limited paralegal services such as drafting commonly used legal documents for service members and their families, providing guidance to unit commands regarding the administrative and disciplinary procedure, and acting as notaries.
The Marine Corps and Coast Guard do not maintain separate JAG Corps, and judge advocates in those services maintain their line-officer status. In the Navy, JAG officers only serve in legal positions. Judge advocates in the Army and Air Force retain eligibility for command and may be assigned to a non-legal position with permission of the Judge Advocate General, but this is only rarely done; the majority serve in legal positions and their careers are therefore similar to those of the Navy.
According to the U.S. Department of Defense, judge advocates typically join the JAG Corps after graduating from law school. An exception is the U.S. Army's Funded Legal Education Program, under which a small number of active-duty officers and non-commissioned officers are selected to attend law school on a full-time basis tuition-free while receiving their military base pay and benefits. [3] [4] Other branches of the U.S. military offer similar programs. [5] [6]
The Uniform Code of Military Justice, also known as UCMJ, is the primary legal code through which all internal military justice matters of the United States are governed. The UCMJ applies to all members of the military of the United States, including military retirees as well as members of other federal uniformed services (such as NOAA Corps and the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps) when attached to the military. The UCMJ was created by an act of the United States Congress in 1951 in order to establish relatively consistent systems of military justice in all branches of the nation's armed forces. However, in cases involving very minor disciplinary infractions, each service has somewhat differing procedures. (Such cases are governed by UCMJ Article 15 and are called non-judicial punishment, Captain's Mast (Navy), or Office Hours (Marines).)
In addition to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, personnel are subject to the terms of the Constitution, other federal laws, and individual state laws where applicable (e.g., whenever the service member is in the United States, unless on a military base with exclusive federal jurisdiction). When a violation of the UCMJ occurs, the matter is handled by the command of the service member. When a violation of a federal or state law occurs, the matter may be handled by local, state, or federal authorities.
The forum through which criminal cases are tried in the United States armed forces is the court-martial. This term also applies to the panel of military officers selected to serve as the finders of fact or "jury". (In other words, they fulfill the role of a civilian jury in trying criminal cases.) The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) outlines three distinct types of courts-martial.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for several tiers of appeal. All cases are reviewed by the commander convening the court (the convening authority ) who, as a matter of command prerogative, may approve, disapprove, or modify the findings and/or sentence. The commander may not approve a finding of guilty for an offense of which the accused was acquitted nor increase the sentence adjudged. A convicted service member may submit a request for leniency to the convening authority prior to the convening authority's approval of the court-martial sentence.
Each military service and the Coast Guard has a Court of Criminal Appeals, which is composed of panels of three appellate military judges:
These courts review all cases in which the approved sentence includes death, a punitive discharge, or confinement for at least a year, and all cases referred to it by the service Judge Advocate General. The court of criminal appeals "may affirm only such findings of guilty and the sentence or such part of the sentence, as it finds correct in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. In considering the record, it may weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, and determine controverted questions of fact, recognizing that the trial court saw and heard the witnesses." Article 66(c), UCMJ.
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) consists of five civilian judges appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, to 15-year terms. The CAAF must review cases from all of the military services in which the court of criminal appeals has affirmed a death sentence, cases the Judge Advocate General orders sent to the court, and cases appealed from the court of criminal appeals by the accused in which the CAAF finds good cause to grant the petition for review. Unlike the service courts of criminal appeals, the CAAF "shall take action only with respect to matters of law." Article 67(c), UCMJ. Decisions of the CAAF are "subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari." Article 67a, UCMJ; this merely confirms Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, granting the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in all US cases where it does not have original jurisdiction.
Cases not meeting the criteria for review by the service courts of criminal appeals are reviewed in the office of the service Judge Advocate General. Article 69, UCMJ. A death sentence "may not be executed until approved by the President. In such a case, the President may commute, remit, or suspend the sentence, or any part thereof, as he sees fit. That part of the sentence providing for death may not be suspended." Article 71(a), UCMJ.
Besides prosecuting, defending, and presiding over courts-martial, military attorneys advise commanders on issues involving a number of areas of law. Depending on the service, these areas may include the law of war, the rules of engagement and their interpretation, and other operational law issues, government contract law, administrative law, labor law, environmental law, international law, claims against the government (such as under the Federal Tort Claims Act), and information law (such as requests for information in the possession of the military under the Freedom of Information Act). Military attorneys also advise individual service members, military retirees, and their families regarding personal civil legal problems they may have, including drafting wills, fending off creditors and reviewing leases.
In addition to being licensed attorneys in any state or territory of the U.S., all military attorneys undergo specialized training to qualify as judge advocates, allowing them to act as trial or defense counsel at military courts-martial. Specialized training takes place at one of three military law centers:
Naval Justice School is the primary training center for Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard JAs. Most judge advocates will take additional classes at more than one of these facilities during their time in the JAG Corps.
The Army's JAG School is the only military law center that has full American Bar Association accreditation. Its graduate course, leading to a Master of Laws degree, is open to judge advocates from all service branches.
Newly commissioned JAG officers may have little to no special legal education prior to commissioning; after completing Army Direct Commissioned Course, they receive their legal training at Judge Advocate Basic Officer Course at Fort Lee, Virginia.
In the United States Armed Forces, Non-judicial punishment (NJP) is a disciplinary measure that may be applied to individual military personnel, without a need for a court martial or similar proceedings.
A court-martial is a military court or a trial conducted in such a court. A court-martial is empowered to determine the guilt of members of the armed forces subject to military law, and, if the defendant is found guilty, to decide upon punishment. In addition, courts-martial may be used to try prisoners of war for war crimes. The Geneva Conventions require that POWs who are on trial for war crimes be subject to the same procedures as would be the holding military's own forces. Finally, courts-martial can be convened for other purposes, such as dealing with violations of martial law, and can involve civilian defendants.
Military justice is the body of laws and procedures governing members of the armed forces. Many nation-states have separate and distinct bodies of law that govern the conduct of members of their armed forces. Some states use special judicial and other arrangements to enforce those laws, while others use civilian judicial systems. Legal issues unique to military justice include the preservation of good order and discipline, the legality of orders, and appropriate conduct for members of the military. Some states enable their military justice systems to deal with civil offenses committed by their armed forces in some circumstances.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundation of the system of military justice of the armed forces of the United States. The UCMJ was established by the United States Congress in accordance with their constitutional authority, per Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power. .. to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces" of the United States.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is an Article I court that exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the United States Armed Forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The court is composed of five civilian judges appointed for 15-year terms by the president of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The court reviews decisions from the intermediate appellate courts of the services: the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Judge Advocate General's Corps, also known as the "JAG Corps" or "JAG", is the legal arm of the United States Navy. Today, the corps consists of a worldwide organization of more than 730 commissioned officers serving as judge advocates, 30 limited duty officers (law), 500 enlisted members and nearly 275 civilian personnel, all serving under the direction of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy.
The Judge Advocate General's Corps also known as the "JAG Corps" or "JAG" is the legal arm of the United States Air Force.
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.
The Judge Advocate General's Corps of the United States Army, also known as the U.S. Army JAG Corps, is the legal arm of the United States Army. It is composed of Army officers who are also lawyers, who provide legal services to the Army at all levels of command, and also includes legal administrator warrant officers, paralegal noncommissioned officers and junior enlisted personnel, and civilian employees.
The use of capital punishment by the United States military is a legal punishment in martial criminal justice. Despite its legality, capital punishment has not been imposed by the U.S. military in over sixty years.
The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) is the intermediate appellate court for criminal convictions in the United States Navy and the Marine Corps.
In the United States military, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) is an appellate court that reviews certain court martial convictions of Army personnel.
The United States Marine Corps' Judge Advocate Division serves both to advise the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) and other officials in Headquarters, Marine Corps on legal matters, and to oversee the Marine Corps legal community. The head of the Judge Advocate Division (JAD) is the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant.
The Judge Advocate General of the Navy (JAG) is the highest-ranking uniformed lawyer in the United States Department of the Navy. The Judge Advocate General is the principal advisor to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations on legal matters pertaining to the Navy. The Judge Advocate General also performs other duties prescribed to him under 10 U.S.C. § 8088 and those prescribed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (CGCCA) is the intermediate appellate court for criminal convictions in the U.S. Coast Guard. It is located in Washington, DC.
The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) is an independent appellate judicial body authorized by Congress and established by the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force pursuant to the exclusive authority under 10 U.S.C. § 866(a). The Court hears and decides appeals of United States Air Force court-martial convictions and appeals pendente lite. Its appellate judges are assigned to the Court by The Judge Advocate General. The Judge Advocate General instructs court-martial convening authorities to take action in accordance with the Court's decisions.
The Naval Justice School (NJS) is an educational institution of the United States Navy whose mission is to instruct Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard officers and enlisted personnel in the fundamental principles of military justice, civil and administrative law, and procedure. In addition to being licensed attorneys in any state or territory of the U.S., all attorneys in the Judge Advocate General's Corps must undergo training either in this institution, or in the complementary institutions of the United States Army and the United States Air Force, allowing them to act as trial or defense counsel at military courts-martial.
The military courts of the United Kingdom are governed by the Armed Forces Act 2006. The system set up under the Act applies to all three armed services: the Royal Navy (RN), the British Army, and the Royal Air Force (RAF), and replaces the three parallel systems that were previously in existence.
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.