United States military jury

Last updated

A United States military "jury" (or "members", in military parlance) serves a function similar to an American civilian jury, but with several notable differences. Only a general court-martial (which may impose any sentences, from dishonorable discharge to death [1] ) or special court-martial (which can impose sentences of up to one year of confinement and bad-conduct discharge [2] ) includes members. There are no members in a trial by summary court-martial (which can impose sentences of up to 30 days of confinement [3] ). If the defendant at a general or special court-martial chooses to be tried by members rather than by a military judge alone, the members are responsible for rendering the verdict, while the judge renders the sentence in a non-capital case. In capital cases they also render the sentance or may refer the decision to the judge for a lower sentence. [4] The charges are brought forward by an officer called a "convening authority", [5] who also selects the members who try the accused. [6] The charges are prosecuted by judge advocates called "trial counsel". [7] Defendants facing general or special courts-martial are represented free of charge from judge advocates acting as defense counsel. [8] Defendants may also be represented at general or special courts-martial by civilian attorneys hired at their own expense. [9] While not required by Congressional law, service policy provides that, at summary courts-martial, many military accused receive representation from a judge advocate defense counsel free of charge.

Contents

Mechanics

Jury composition

The Convening Authority must detail at least four members in a special court-martial, [10] at least eight members in a general court-martial, [10] and at least twelve members in a general court-martial where the death penalty is possible. [11] The military judge, after challenges, impanels only the minimum number from the remaining members. [12] The convening authority chooses "such members of the armed forces as, in his opinion, are best qualified for the duty by reason of age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament." [13]

If the defendant is a commissioned officer, all of the members must also be commissioned officers. [14] If the defendant is a warrant officer, the members may be either commissioned officers or warrant officers. [14] If the defendant is an enlisted member of the armed forces, the members may be commissioned officers, warrant officers, and enlisted members. [14] An enlisted defendant may request to be tried by a panel entirely made up of officers, or a panel at least one-third of whom are enlisted. [15]

Verdicts

The members vote by secret written ballot on each of the allegations the accused person faces, with each member having one vote on each charge. [16] Unlike most civilian jurisdictions, a unanimous verdict is not required in most cases. Unless the death penalty is possible for the offense in question, the members may convict by a three-fouths majority. [17] If the death penalty is possible if convicted, then the members must be unanimous in their verdict. [18] As such, military juries are incapable of being a hung jury.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Most trial juries are "petit juries", and usually consist of twelve people. A larger jury known as a grand jury has been used to investigate potential crimes and render indictments against suspects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court-martial</span> Judicial action in military forces

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 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.

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. A hung jury may result in the case being tried again.

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

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial system of Finland</span> National court system of Finland

Under the Constitution of Finland, everyone is entitled to have their case heard by a court or an authority appropriately and without undue delay. This is achieved through the judicial system of Finland.

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.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Courts-martial of the United States</span> Trials conducted by the U.S. military

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps</span> Legal arm of the U.S. Army

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment by the United States military</span> Use of the death penalty by the U.S. military

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Israel</span> Part of the article of the series of government of Israel

The judicial system of Israel consists of secular courts and religious courts. The law courts constitute a separate and independent unit of Israel's Ministry of Justice. The system is headed by the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial reform of Alexander II</span> 19th-century major liberalization in Russian Empire

The judicial reform of Alexander II is generally considered one of the most successful and consistent of all his reforms. A completely new court system and order of legal proceedings were established. The main results were the introduction of a unified judicial system instead of a cumbersome set of estates of the realm courts, and fundamental changes in criminal trials. The latter included the establishment of the principle of equality of the parties involved, the introduction of public hearings, the jury trial, and a professional advocate that had never existed in Russia. However, there were also problems, as certain obsolete institutions were not covered by the reform. Also, the reform was hindered by extrajudicial punishment, introduced on a widespread scale during the reigns of his successors – Alexander III and Nicholas II.

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.

The Court of Criminal Jurisdiction was a criminal court established in 1787 under the auspices of the First Charter of Justice in the British colony of New South Wales, now a state of Australia. The Court of Criminal Jurisdiction was the first criminal court in the colony. The court was abolished in 1823, replaced by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military courts of the United Kingdom</span>

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.

In United States military law, a convening authority is an individual with certain legal powers granted under either the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the Military Commissions Act of 2009.

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.

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.

References

  1. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 818
  2. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 819
  3. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 820
  4. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 853
  5. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   §§ 822 – 824
  6. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 825
  7. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 838(a)
  8. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 838(b)(3)
  9. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 838(b)(2)
  10. 1 2 10 U.S.C.   § 816
  11. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 825a(a)
  12. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 825(e)(3)
  13. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 825(e)(2)
  14. 1 2 3 10 U.S.C.   § 825
  15. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 825(c)
  16. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 851
  17. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 852(a)(2)
  18. ↑ 10 U.S.C.   § 852(a)(1)
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.