United States v. Briggs (2020)

Last updated

United States v. Briggs
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 13, 2020
Decided December 10, 2020
Full case nameUnited States v. Michael Briggs
Docket no. 19-108
Citations592 U.S. ___ ( more )
141 S. Ct. 467
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior78 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 2019); cert. granted, 140 S. Ct. 519 (2019)
Holding
Capital crimes do not have a statute of limitations under the UCMJ, and rape is a capital crime under the UCMJ.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceGorsuch
Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

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. [1]

Contents

This case was considered notable due to its implications on the issue of sexual assault in the United States military and the military's ability to address these types of cases. [2] [3] The case was consolidated with another, similar case called United States v. Collins (No. 19-184).

Background

Under United States federal law, there is a separation between military and civilian law. Congress enacted the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to create a separate, parallel legal system for the military, which is enforced by its own judicial system. [4] In general, under the UCMJ crimes prosecuted under military law must be charged within five years due to the statute of limitations, with the primary exception being the crime of desertion or being absent without leave during a time of war. In 1986, Congress passed a law to exempt certain capital offenses (those punishable by the death penalty) from the statute of limitations as well. [4] At the time of the 1986 amendment, capital offenses included rape. However, in 1977, the Supreme Court ruled in Coker v. Georgia that imposing the death penalty for rape violated the Eighth Amendment. [4] Congress subsequently amended the UCMJ again to clarify that there was no statute of limitations for rape under the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006. [4] This created an ambiguity in the law as it relates to rape and sexual assault cases that took place between 1986 (when Congress initially removed the statute of limitations for all capital offenses) and 2006 (when Congress clarified that the statute of limitations did not apply to rape even though rape was no longer a capital offense). This was resolved by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in their 2018 ruling United States v. Mangahas (No. 17-0434). In Mangahas, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that, because rape was not a capital offense since 1977 due to Coker v. Georgia and because Congress did not pass a law separately excluding rape from the general statute of limitations, the general 5-year statute of limitations would apply to all rape cases stemming from incidents that took place before 2006. [4] As a result of this ruling, several pending rape investigations were suspended and cases that were on appeal were dismissed.

Case history

In 2005, Briggs, a lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force, raped a fellow airman who was assigned to the life support equipment section. At the time, the victim did not report the rape to law enforcement but did tell people she knew about it. In 2013, the victim reported the incident to law enforcement. Working with the Air Force criminal investigators, she contacted Briggs to discuss the assault and recorded him explicitly confessing to the rape. [5] Briggs was tried before a military judge at Spangdahlem Air Base and, in August 2014, he was convicted and sentenced to five months of confinement as well as a discharge from the Air Force and letter of reprimand. [4] [6]

In lower courts

Briggs appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) in 2015. In his appeal, he raised several potential issues, including the statute of limitations for rape. However, the AFCCA rejected his appeal in June 2016, in part due to the fact that he failed to raise the statute of limitations issue during his trial. [6] Briggs then appealed again, this time to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). In an opinion published in 2019 (No. 16-0711), CAAF ruled in favor of Briggs, dismissing the case against him. [4] [6] They cited the Mangahas decision, ruling that the 5-year statute of limitations applied to Briggs' case since the incident took place in 2005 (before Congress enacted the amendments removing the statute of limitations). According to the court, the statute of limitations expired in 2010 and thus the 2013 prosecution was not valid. [7] This time, the government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. [8]

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted the government's petition for a writ of certiorari on November 15, 2019, and consolidated the Briggs case with two other, similar cases for one hour of oral argument scheduled for March 2020. [9] However, this case was one of several that were pushed into the 2020–21 term due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and oral hearings were held instead on October 13, 2020; this was prior to Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the Court to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and thus Barrett took no part in this matter.

The Supreme Court issued its decision on December 10, 2020, reversing the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces' decision in the trials of the three men and remanding the case. [1] The unanimous opinion of the Court was written by Justice Samuel Alito. Alito wrote that in the interpretation of the law, where for crimes "punishable by death", the government's argument that this applicated to the Uniform Code was more pervasive than Briggs' assertion this was the application to civilian law. [10] Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion, and argued the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over cases from the CAAF. [1]

Related Research Articles

A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both criminal law and civil law such as contract law and property law, though often under different names and with varying details.

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.

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

The United States has inherited sodomy laws which constitutionally outlawed a variety of sexual acts that are deemed to be illegal, illicit, unlawful, unnatural or immoral from the colonial-era based laws in the 17th century. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many sodomy-related 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">Capital punishment by the United States federal government</span> Legal penalty in the United States

Capital punishment is a legal punishment under the criminal justice system of the United States federal government. It is the most serious punishment that could be imposed under federal law. The serious crimes that warrant this punishment include treason, espionage, murder, large-scale drug trafficking, or attempted murder of a witness, juror, or court officer in certain cases.

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.

<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">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.

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.

<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.

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 crime against nature or unnatural act has historically been a legal term in English-speaking states identifying forms of sexual behavior not considered natural or decent and are legally punishable offenses. Sexual practices that have historically been considered to be "crimes against nature" include masturbation, sodomy and bestiality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals</span> United States Article I court

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.

Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for a crime in which the victim did not die and the victim's death was not intended.

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.

United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

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.

Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the decision in Johnson v. United States announced a substantive rule change and is therefore retroactive.

References

  1. 1 2 3 United States v. Briggs, No. 19-108 , 592 U.S. ___(2020).
  2. ↑ Cooper, Perry (November 15, 2019). "Supreme Court Takes Up Military Rape Statute of Limitations Cases". Bloomberg News. Retrieved March 13, 2020.
  3. ↑ Stanzione Heelan, Melissa (August 6, 2018). "Justices, in Rare Step, Reconsider Military Rape Case". Bloomberg. Retrieved March 13, 2020.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Valentine, Catherine (August 12, 2019). "She recorded her rapist's confession. Now, the Supreme Court could hear it". CNN. Retrieved March 13, 2020.
  5. ↑ Valentine, Catherine (August 10, 2019). "She recorded her rapist's confession. Now, the Supreme Court could hear it". Mercury News. Retrieved March 13, 2020.
  6. 1 2 3 Kime, Patricia (July 29, 2019). "Pentagon Seeks Supreme Court Decision on Prosecuting Old Rape Cases". Military.com. Retrieved March 13, 2020.
  7. ↑ Montgomery, Nancy (July 30, 2019). "Supreme Court asked to reverse military court decision limiting rape prosecutions". Stars and Stripes Magazine. Retrieved March 13, 2020.
  8. ↑ Jones, Alexandria (November 15, 2019). "Justices to Tackle Time Limit on Military Rape Cases". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved March 13, 2020.
  9. ↑ Howe, Amy (November 15, 2019). "Justices grant four new cases". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved March 13, 2020.
  10. ↑ Kelly, Caroline; Valentine, Catherine (December 10, 2020). "Supreme Court overturns top military court, rules that rape cases before 2006 can be prosecuted". CNN . Retrieved December 10, 2020.
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.