Courts-martial are judicial proceedings conducted by the armed forces. The Continental Congress first authorized the use of courts-martial in 1775. From the time of the American Revolutionary War through the middle of the twentieth century, courts-martial were governed by the Articles of War and the Articles for the Government of the Navy. Congress's authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" is contained in the United States Constitution at Article I, Section 8.
Until 1920, court-martial convictions were reviewed either by a commander in the field or by the president, depending on the severity of the sentence or the rank of the accused. The absence of formal review received critical attention during World War I, and the Army created an internal legal review process for a limited number of cases. Following the war, in the Act of June 4, 1920, Congress required the Army to establish boards of review, consisting of three lawyers, to consider cases involving death, dismissal of an officer, an unsuspended dishonorable discharge, or confinement in a penitentiary, with limited exceptions. The legislation further required legal review of other cases in the Office of the Judge Advocate General.
The military justice system under the Articles of War and Articles for the Government of the Navy received significant attention during World War II and its immediate aftermath. During the war, in which over 16 million persons served in the American armed forces, the military services held over 1.7 million courts-martial. Many of these proceedings were conducted without lawyers acting as presiding officers or counsel. Studies conducted by the military departments and the civilian bar[who?] identified a variety of problems in the administration of military justice during the war, including the potential for improper command influence.
In 1948, Congress enacted significant reforms to the Articles of War, including creation of a Judicial Council of three general officers to consider cases involving sentences of death, life imprisonment, or dismissal of an officer, as well as cases referred to the Council by a board of review or the judge advocate general. During the same period, Congress placed the departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force under the newly created Department of Defense. The first Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, created a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Edmund Morgan to study the potential for unifying and revising the services' disparate military justice systems under a single code.
The committee recommended a unified system applicable to the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. The committee also recommended that qualified attorneys serve as presiding officers and counsel, subject to limited exceptions. Numerous other changes were proposed by the committee to enhance the rights of servicemen in the context of the disciplinary needs of the armed forces. The recommendations included creation of an independent civilian appellate court.
The committee's recommendations, as revised by Congress, became the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), enacted on May 5, 1950.[1] Its name was changed from council to Court in the house, out of fear that council sounded to much like city council.[2] Article 67 of the UCMJ established the Court of Military Appeals as a three-judge civilian court. The report of the House Armed Services Committee accompanying the legislation emphasized that the new court would be "completely removed from all military influence of persuasion." The legislation became effective on May 31, 1951. In 1968, Congress redesignated the court as the United States Court of Military Appeals.[3]
In 1989, Congress enacted comprehensive legislation to enhance the effectiveness and stability of the court.[vague] The legislation increased the court's membership to five judges, consistent with the American Bar Association's Standards for Court Organization. In 1994, Congress gave the court its current designation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.[4]
Jurisdiction and appellate review of courts-martial
Courthouse for the Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
Courts-martial are conducted under the UCMJ (10U.S.C.§§801–946, U.C.M.J. art. 1–146) and the Manual for Courts-Martial. If the trial results in a conviction, the case is then reviewed by the convening authority– the person who referred the case for trial by court-martial. The convening authority may approve the conviction of the court-martial, but also has the discretion to mitigate the findings and sentence.[5]
Beyond the review by the convening authority, court-martial cases may be appealed to two additional levels of judicial review. These are the Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
If the sentence, as approved by the convening authority, includes death, a bad-conduct discharge, a dishonorable discharge, dismissal of an officer, or confinement for one year or more, the case is reviewed by an intermediate court. There are four such courts—the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals. The Courts of Criminal Appeals review the cases for legal error, factual sufficiency, and sentence appropriateness. All other cases are subject to review by judge advocates under regulations issued by each service. After such review, the Judge Advocate General may refer a case to the appropriate Court of Criminal Appeals. The Courts of Criminal Appeals also have jurisdiction under Article 62 of the UCMJ to consider appeals by the United States of certain judicial rulings during trial. Review under Article 62 is limited to issues involving alleged legal errors.[5]
Final review – Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
The Court's primary jurisdictional statute is Article 67(a) of the UCMJ, which provides:
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces shall review the record in: 1) all cases in which the sentence, as affirmed by a Court of Criminal Appeals, extends to death; 2) all cases reviewed by a Court of Criminal Appeals which the Judge Advocate General orders sent to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for review; and 3) all cases reviewed by a Court of Criminal Appeals in which, upon petition of the accused and on good cause shown, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has granted a review.
Under Article 67(c), the Court's review is limited to issues of law. The Courts of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces also have jurisdiction to consider petitions for extraordinary relief under the All Writs Act (28U.S.C.§1651).[5]
Cases on the court's docket address a broad range of legal issues, including constitutional law, criminal law, evidence, criminal procedure, ethics, administrative law, and national security law. The cases before the court may only be reviewed upon a granted petition for review (which occurs in 10 percent of cases), by certificate from an individual service Judge Advocate General, a sentence of death, a petition for extraordinary relief or a writ appeal petition. Statistics show that the court reviews approximately 10 percent of all court-martialconvictions. In the year ending September 1, 2009, the court had 1,002 cumulative filings and disposed of 1,033 cases. Of these 1,033 cases, 46 were disposed of by signed or per curiam opinions and 987 were by memorandum or order.[6] (By comparison, the US Supreme Court issued 92 signed opinions in 2009.[7])
The Supreme Court of the United States has discretion under 28U.S.C.§1259 to review cases under the UCMJ on writ of certiorari where the CAAF has conducted a mandatory review (death penalty and certified cases), granted discretionary review of a petition, or otherwise granted relief.[8] If the CAAF denies a petition for review or a writ appeal, consideration by the Supreme Court may be obtained only through collateral review (e.g., a writ of habeas corpus).[5] Since 2007, several bills have been introduced into Congress to expand the accessibility of the Supreme Court to service members.
Case citation
Bluebookcitation form for the CAAF is provided in Table T.1 (C.A.A.F.), previously United States Court of Military Appeals (C.M.A.), of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (Columbia Law Review Ass'n et al. eds, 18th ed. 2005). The official reporters are Decisions of the United States Court of Military Appeals (C.M.A.) (1951–75), Court Martial Reports (C.M.R.) (1951–75) and West's Military Justice Reporter (M.J.) (1975–present).
The court has five judges, who are nominated by the president of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate. Judges serve fifteen-year terms. After their term, they must be either re-appointed or retire from the court. When hearing a case, all five judges sit as a panel.
Article 142 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides that not more than three judges may be appointed to the court from the same political party, which is a common provision for Article I courts and administrative agencies, but is unlike Article III federal courts. To underscore the civilian nature of the Court, the statute provides that a person may not be appointed as a judge of the Court within seven years after retirement from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.
The judges regularly meet in conference to discuss recently argued cases. As a matter of custom, there is full discussion of each case followed by a tentative vote. If the chief judge is in the majority, the chief judge assigns the responsibility for drafting an opinion to a judge in the majority. If the chief judge is not in the majority, the most senior judge in the majority assigns the case. After an opinion is drafted, it is circulated to all judges, who have the opportunity to concur, comment, or submit a separate opinion. After the judges have had an opportunity to express their views in writing, the opinion is released to the parties and the public.[10]
The position of chief judge is rotated among the judges to the most senior judge who has not previously served as chief judge. The chief judge serves in that position for five years unless his or her term as a judge expires sooner. Prior to 1992, the chief judge was designated by the president from among the sitting judges.
Senior Judges
Judges retiring from the court at the end of their term are eligible to serve as senior judges, who may be called upon to serve on the court in instances of a vacancy, recusal, or other inability of a current judge to serve.[11]
Each service Judge Advocate General has established separate appellate divisions to represent the government and the defense before the service Courts of Criminal Appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the Supreme Court of the United States regardless of indigency. A servicemember whose case is eligible for review is entitled to free representation by government-furnished counsel, and also may be represented by civilian counsel provided at the servicemember's own expense.[10]
When the court grants review, and in cases involving mandatory review, the parties are notified of the briefing requirements under the court's rules. In most cases, oral argument is scheduled following submission of briefs, but the court decides a number of cases without oral argument. The court notifies the parties and counsel of the oral argument date, and the oral argument schedule is posted on the court's website. In a typical case, each counsel is given 30 minutes to present argument, on behalf of their client, to the court. Unlike most civilian criminal jurisdictions in the United States, the military does not require that a defendant prove an inability to pay in order to receive defense counsel at government expense.[10]
Counsel appearing before the court must be admitted to the Bar of the Court or obtain permission of the court to appear in a specific case. An application for membership in the court's bar may be obtained from the Court's website, www.armfor.uscourts.gov, or by writing to the Clerk of the Court. Over 33,000 attorneys have been admitted to practice since the Court was established in 1951.[10]
Project Outreach and Judge Everett's public role
Most of the court's oral arguments are held at its courthouse in Washington, D.C. On occasion, as part of the court's judicial outreach program, the Court will hold arguments at law schools, military bases, and other public facilities. This practice, known as Project Outreach, was developed principally by Chief Judge Robinson O. Everett as part of a public awareness program to demonstrate the operation of a federal court of appeals and the military criminal justice system. Everett presided over an expansion of the Court's public-facing role during his association with the Court, including taking live telephone phone calls from C-SPAN viewers on a July 14, 1989, television program.[10]
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.
The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. They hear appeals of cases from the United States district courts and some U.S. administrative agencies, and their decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The courts of appeals are divided into 13 "Circuits". Eleven of the circuits are numbered "First" through "Eleventh" and cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders. The District of Columbia Circuit covers only Washington, DC. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from federal courts across the entire United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law.
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.
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.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions ratified by the U.S.
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 carried out by the U.S. military in over sixty years.
Dwight H. Sullivan is an American military officer and lawyer. From 2005 to 2007, he served as the Chief Defense Counsel for the Office of Military Commissions. In 2007, he became a civilian lawyer working for the Air Force doing death penalty defense appellate work. Sullivan is a colonel in the United States Marine Corps Reserve. He is a graduate of the University of Maryland and the University of Virginia School of Law. Prior to his role in defending the Guantanamo Bay detainees he worked with the Maryland office of the American Civil Liberties Union.
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 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.
Ronald Adrin Gray is an American serial killer and rapist whose convictions include four counts of murder, one count of attempted murder and eight counts of rape. His crimes were committed when he was in the United States Army, stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Since 2005, federal legislation has been introduced in the 109th Congress, 110th Congress, 111th Congress and the 112th Congress to amend Title 28 United States Code section 1259 to allow members of the United States Armed Forces to appeal court-martial convictions when the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denies a petition for grant of review or extraordinary relief. In the 112th Congress the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011, H.R. 3133 was introduced in the House of Representatives and the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011, S. 1664 was introduced in the Senate. Both bills are currently pending.
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.
United States of America v. Technical Sergeant Eric P. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 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.
The Judge Advocate General's 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.
Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, the Court recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty, although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.
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.
United States v. Briggs, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) erred in ruling that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape committed between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years. The Court, with the exception of Justice Amy Coney Barrett who did not participate on the case, ruled unanimously that under the Uniform Code, such crimes that are "punishable by death" under the Code do not have a statute of limitations unlike similar civilian crimes.
↑ An Act To amend section 867(a) of title 10, United States Code, in order to establish the Court of Military Appeals as the United States Court of Military Appeals under article I of the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes, Pub. L.90–340, 82Stat.178, enacted June 15, 1968.
↑ National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, Pub. L.103–337, 108Stat.2831, enacted October 5, 1994, § 924.
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.
