2008 edition - Fort Sam Houston - U.S. Army

2008 edition - Fort Sam Houston - U.S. Army 2008 edition - Fort Sam Houston - U.S. Army

samhouston.army.mil
from samhouston.army.mil More from this publisher
18.08.2013 Views

App. 21, R.C.M. 405(h) APPENDIX 21 divided into two oaths, one for the witness testifying at the investigation, the second to be given when the witness subscribes to a written summary after the hearing. The second oath is described in the second paragraph in the discussion. Note that instead of a second oath, the witness could be requested to sign a statement with the express proviso that the signature is made under penalty of perjury. See paragraph 57 of Part IV and Analysis. The second and third paragraph in the discussion are based on the second paragraph of paragraph 34 d of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). The admonition concerning the preservation of substantially verbatim notes and tapes of testimony at the end of the second paragraph has been added to avoid potential Jencks Act problems, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. See R.C.M. 914 Analysis. The fourth paragraph in the discussion of subsection (1) is based on United States v. Pruitt, 48 C.M.R. 495 (A.F.C.M.R. 1974). Cf. United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181 (1977). Subsection (2) is new and is intended to promote the early identification of possible defects in the investigation so that they can be corrected promptly. See also subsection (k) of this rule. Subsection (2) clarifies the responsibility of the investigating officer as a judicial officer. See generally United States v. Collins , 6 M.J. 256 (C.M.A. 1979); United States v. Payne, supra. Requiring objections to be made to the investigating officer ensures that they will be placed in proper channels, so that they may be acted upon promptly. Many will concern matters which the investigating officer can rectify. See generally United States v. Roberts, and United States v. Chestnut, both supra. Other matters will fall within the province of the commander who directed the investigation, in whom most pretrial judicial authority reposes at this stage. S e e g e n e r a l l y U n i t e d S t a t e s v . N i x , 1 5 U . S . C . M . A . 5 7 8 , 3 6 C.M.R. 76 (1965). Nothing in R.C.M. 405 is intended to restrict the authority of the commander who directed the investigation to resolve issues involved in it, as long as that commander does not encroach upon the investigating officer’s discretion and ability to personally make conclusions and recommendations. Subsection (3) is new and is based on MacDonald v. Hodson, 19 U.S.C.M.A. 582, 42 C.M.R. 184 (1970). See also R.C.M. 806 for examples of some reasons why a pretrial investigation hearing might be closed. Fed.R.Crim. P.6 is generally inapplicable due to its different nature and purposes; it requires closed proceedings. S u b s e c t i o n ( 3 ) i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o e x p r e s s a n y p r e f e r e n c e f o r closed or open hearings. (i) Military Rules of Evidence. This subsection is solely a crossreference to the Military Rules of Evidence. Mil. R. Evid. 412, which concerns testimony of victims of sexual offenses at trial, does not apply at Article 32 hearings. However, there may be circumstances in which questioning should be limited by Mil. R. Evid. 303, which prohibits requiring degrading testimony in pretrial investigations and elsewhere. The privacy interests of the victim may also be protected by closure of the Article 32 hearings during appropriate periods. See subsection (h)(3) of this rule. The first paragraph of the discussion is consistent with present practice. It is added to give additional guidance not included in paragraph 34 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). It is also consistent with General civilian practice. See Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, Proving Federal Crimes 3-3 (1980). 1993 Amendment: The amendment to R.C.M. 405(i) makes the p r o v i s i o n s o f M i l . R . E v i d . 4 1 2 a p p l i c a b l e a t p r e t r i a l A21-26 investigations. (j) Report of investigation. This subsection is based on paragraphs 34 d and e of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). The provision for informal reports in paragraph 34 f of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) has been deleted. Because R.C.M. 405 applies only if charges are ultimately referred to a general court-martial, there is no need to describe informal reports. It if becomes apparent before completion of the investigation that charges will not be referred to a general court-martial, no report need be prepared unless the commander who directed the investigation requires it. In other cases a formal report will be necessary. Subsection (1) is based on Article 32(a) and (b) and paragraph 34 e of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). Subsections (2)(A) through (E) are based on Article 32(b) and paragraph 34 e of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). Subsection (2)(F) is new but is consistent with current practice and with the need to account for pretrial delays in relation to speedy trial issues. Subsections (2)(G) and (H) are based on Article 32(a) and paragraph 34 a of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). The probable cause standard is based on United States v. Engle, 1 M.J. 387, 389, n. 4 (C.M.A. 1976); Hearings on H.R. 2498 Before a Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Armed Services, 81st Sess. 997 (1949). Subsection (2)(I) is based on Article 32(a) and paragraph 34 e(6) of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). Subsection (3) is based on the first sentence of paragraph 34 e of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) which implemented the requirement of the last sentence of Article 32(b). Subsection (3) leaves the mechanics of reproduction and distribution of the report to the Secretary concerned, or, in the absence of Secretarial regulations, to the commander concerned. Subsection (4) is new and is intended to encourage the early identification of possible defects in the report so that they can be corrected promptly when necessary. See also subsection (k) and Analysis. ( k ) W a i v e r . T h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e i s b a s e d o n A r t i c l e 3 4 ( a ) , a s a m e n d e d . M i l i t a r y J u s t i c e A c t o f 1 9 8 3 , P u b . L . N o . 9 8 - 2 0 9 , § 4(a)(2), 97 Stat. 1393 (1983), which expressly permits waiver of the Article 32 investigation. This is consistent with previous practice. See United States v. Schaffer, 12 M.J. 425 (C.M.A. 1982). The remainder of this subsection is also new to the Manual for Courts-Martial. Along with subsections (h)(2) and (j)(4) of this rule, it is intended to promote efficiency in the pretrial process by placing the burden on the defense to raise objections when they can most easily be remedied, instead of waiting until trial. Recent decisions are consistent with this approach. See United States v. Clark, 11 M.J. 179 (C.M.A. 1981); United States v. Cumberledge, 6 M.J. 203 (C.M.A. 1979); United States v. Cruz, 5 M.J. 286 (C.M.A. 1978); United States v. Chuculate, supra. See also Article 34(d). Because the accused always has the right to be represented in the investigation by qualified counsel, this burden is appropriate. The amendment of Article 32(b) (Military Justice Amendments of 1981, Pub.L. No. 97-81, § 4, 95 Stat. 1085, 1088) guarantees that qualified counsel will be detailed to represent the accused for the investigation. The defense may renew before the military judge any objection f o r w h i c h i t h a s n o t r e c e i v e d s a t i s f a c t o r y r e l i e f . S e e R . C . M . 905(b)(2); R.C.M. 906(b)(3). The last sentence in the discussion is based on United States v. Cumberledge and United States v. Chuculate, bothsupra.

Rule 406 Pretrial advice ( a ) I n g e n e r a l . T h i s s u b s e c t i o n i s b a s e d o n A r t i c l e 3 4 ( a ) a s amended, Military Justice Act of 1983, Pub.L.No. 98–209, § 4, 97 Stat. 1393 (1983); and on paragraph 35 b of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). (b) Contents. This subsection is based on Article 34(a). It is consistent with paragraph 35 c of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) (except insofar as Article 34 is modified). Matters which paragraph 35 c said “should” be included are not required, but are listed in the discussion. The rule states the minimum necessary to comply with Article 34(a). Cf. United States v. Greenwalt, 6 U.S.C.M.A. 569, 20 C.M.R. 285 (1955). The first paragraph in the discussion is based on paragraph 35 c of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) and United States v. Hardin, 7 M.J. 399 (C.M.A. 1979); United States v. Greenwalt, supra; United States v. Schuller, 5 U.S.C.M.A. 101, 17 C.M.R. 101 (1954); United States v. Pahl, 50 C.M.R. 885 (C.G.C.M.R. 1975). The second paragraph of the discussion is based on S.Rep. No. 53, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 17 (1983), and on the second sentence in paragraph 35 c of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). The last paragraph is based on United States v. Greenwalt, supra. See also United States v. Rivera, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 6, 42 C . M . R . 1 9 8 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . H e n r y , 5 0 C . M . R . 6 8 5 (A.F.C.M.R.), pet. denied, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 666, 50 C.M.R. 903 (1975); United States v. Barton, 41 C.M.R. 464 (A.C.M.R. 1969). 1 9 9 1 A m e n d m e n t : T h e D i s c u s s i o n t o R . C . M . 4 0 6 ( b ) w a s amended to state explicitly the applicable standard of proof. See United States v. Engle, 1 M.J. 387, 389 n.4 (C.M.A. 1976). The sentence concerning pretrial advice defects is based upon United States v. Murray, 25 M.J. 445 (C.M.A. 1988), in which the court reviewed the legislative history to the 1983 amendment to Article 34, U.C.M.J., and held that lack of a pretrial advice in violation of the article is neither jurisdictional nor per se prejudicial. 2 0 0 4 A m e n d m e n t : T h e D i s c u s s i o n t o R . C . M . 4 0 6 ( b ) w a s amended to add as additional, non-binding guidance that the SJA should include the recommendation of the Article 32 investigating officer. (c) Distribution. This subsection is based on Article 34(b), as a m e n d e d , M i l i t a r y J u s t i c e A c t o f 1 9 8 3 , P u b . L . N o . 9 8 – 2 0 9 , § 4(b), 97 Stat. 1393 (1983). Paragraph 35 c of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) also required that the staff judge advocate’s recommendation be forwarded with the charges if referred to trial. This subsection makes clear that the entire advice is to be forwarded. This ensures that the advice can be subjected to judicial review when necessary. See R.C.M. 906(b)(3). See also United States v. Collins, 6 M.J. 256 (C.M.A. 1979); United States v. Engle, supra. Rule 407 Action by commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction (a) Disposition. This subsection is based on Article 34(a) and paragraph 35 a of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). See Article 22. (b) National security matters. This subsection is based on the second and third sentences of the second paragraph of paragraph 3 3 f o f M C M , 1 9 6 9 ( R e v . ) a n d A r t i c l e 4 3 ( e ) . I t h a s b e e n broadened to expressly recognize the authority of service Secretaries to promulgate regulations governing disposition of sensitive cases. Note that the rule applies regardless of whether hostilities exist, although as the discussion notes the Article 43(e) procedure ANALYSIS App. 21, R.C.M. 502(a) for suspending the statute of limitations could only be used in time of war. CHAPTER V. COURT-MARTIAL COMPOSITION AND PERSONNEL; CONVENING COURT- MARTIAL Rule 501 Composition and personnel of courtsmartial (a) Composition of courts-martial. This subsection is based on Article 16. Except for the change in the requirement as to the form of the request for trial by military judge alone, it is consistent with paragraph 4 a of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). (b) Counsel in general and special courts-martial. This subsection is based on Article 27(a). Except for the change concerning who details counsel (see R.C.M. 503(c)), it is consistent with paragraph 6 a of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). This subsection includes reference to detailing associate defense counsel. This is based on Article 27(a), as amended Pub.L. No. 98 –209, § 3(c), (f), 97 Stat. 1393 (1983). (c) Other personnel. This subsection is based on paragraph 7 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). Rule 502 Qualifications and duties of personnel of courts-martial (a) Members. Subsection (1) is based on Article 25(a), (b) and (c) and on the first paragraph of paragraph 4 b and paragraph 4 d of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). Factors which disqualify a person from serving as a member are listed in R.C.M. 912(f)(1). The discussion is based on the second paragraph of paragraph 4 b of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). The references to use of members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and of the Public Health Service carry forward the similar provision at paragraph 4 b of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). Similar provisions have been included in naval practice since at least 1937. See, e.g., Naval Courts and Boards § 347 (1937, 1945 reprint). The similar provision in MCM, 1951 was upheld in United States v. Braud, 11 U.S.C.M.A. 192, 29 C.M.R. 8 (1960) (Public Health Service commissioned officer served as m e m b e r o f C o a s t G u a r d c o u r t - m a r t i a l ) , d e c i s i o n b e l o w , 2 8 C.M.R. 692 (C.G.B.R. 1959). Braud upheld the provision even though Article 25 is arguably ambiguous and the P.H.S. officer who served as a member had not been “militarized” and was not himself subject to the code. Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 217 (1976) (P.H.S. may be declared to be a military service in time of war; members become subject to personal jurisdiction of Code); 33 U.S.C. § 855 (NOAA may be transferred by President to military service in national emergency; members become subject to personal jurisdiction of Code); Art. 2(a)(8) (jurisdiction over members of Publ i c H e a l t h S e r v i c e a n d o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n c e S e r v i c e s Administration). The Environmental Science Services Administration, which succeeded the Coast and Geodetic Survey mentioned in some earlier Manuals, is now defunct. Its functions were transferred to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Reorg. Plan No. 4 of 1970, 3 C.F.R. 1075 (1966–1970 Comp.), reprinted in 84 Stat. 2090. NOAA has only a commissioned officer corps. Id. § 2(f); 33 U.S.C.A. § 851 (Supp. 1981). P.H.S. A21-27

Rule 406 Pretrial advice<br />

( a ) I n g e n e r a l . T h i s s u b s e c t i o n i s b a s e d o n A r t i c l e 3 4 ( a ) a s<br />

amended, Military Justice Act of 1983, Pub.L.No. 98–209, § 4, 97<br />

Stat. 1393 (1983); and on paragraph 35 b of MCM, 1969 (Rev.).<br />

(b) Contents. This subsection is based on Article 34(a). It is<br />

consistent with paragraph 35 c of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) (except<br />

insofar as Article 34 is modified). Matters which paragraph 35 c<br />

said “should” be included are not required, but are listed in the<br />

discussion. The rule states the minimum necessary to comply<br />

with Article 34(a). Cf. United States v. Greenwalt, 6 U.S.C.M.A.<br />

569, 20 C.M.R. 285 (1955).<br />

The first paragraph in the discussion is based on paragraph 35<br />

c of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) and United States v. Hardin, 7 M.J. 399<br />

(C.M.A. 1979); United States v. Greenwalt, supra; United States<br />

v. Schuller, 5 U.S.C.M.A. 101, 17 C.M.R. 101 (1954); United<br />

States v. Pahl, 50 C.M.R. 885 (C.G.C.M.R. 1975).<br />

The second paragraph of the discussion is based on S.Rep. No.<br />

53, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 17 (1983), and on the second sentence<br />

in paragraph 35 c of MCM, 1969 (Rev.).<br />

The last paragraph is based on United States v. Greenwalt,<br />

supra. See also United States v. Rivera, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 6, 42<br />

C . M . R . 1 9 8 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . H e n r y , 5 0 C . M . R . 6 8 5<br />

(A.F.C.M.R.), pet. denied, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 666, 50 C.M.R. 903<br />

(1975); United States v. Barton, 41 C.M.R. 464 (A.C.M.R. 1969).<br />

1 9 9 1 A m e n d m e n t : T h e D i s c u s s i o n t o R . C . M . 4 0 6 ( b ) w a s<br />

amended to state explicitly the applicable standard of proof. See<br />

United States v. Engle, 1 M.J. 387, 389 n.4 (C.M.A. 1976). The<br />

sentence concerning pretrial advice defects is based upon United<br />

States v. Murray, 25 M.J. 445 (C.M.A. 1988), in which the court<br />

reviewed the legislative history to the 1983 amendment to Article<br />

34, U.C.M.J., and held that lack of a pretrial advice in violation<br />

of the article is neither jurisdictional nor per se prejudicial.<br />

2 0 0 4 A m e n d m e n t : T h e D i s c u s s i o n t o R . C . M . 4 0 6 ( b ) w a s<br />

amended to add as additional, non-binding guidance that the SJA<br />

should include the recommendation of the Article 32 investigating<br />

officer.<br />

(c) Distribution. This subsection is based on Article 34(b), as<br />

a m e n d e d , M i l i t a r y J u s t i c e A c t o f 1 9 8 3 , P u b . L . N o . 9 8 – 2 0 9 ,<br />

§ 4(b), 97 Stat. 1393 (1983). Paragraph 35 c of MCM, 1969<br />

(Rev.) also required that the staff judge advocate’s recommendation<br />

be forwarded with the charges if referred to trial. This subsection<br />

makes clear that the entire advice is to be forwarded. This<br />

ensures that the advice can be subjected to judicial review when<br />

necessary. See R.C.M. 906(b)(3). See also United States v. Collins,<br />

6 M.J. 256 (C.M.A. 1979); United States v. Engle, supra.<br />

Rule 407 Action by commander exercising<br />

general court-martial jurisdiction<br />

(a) Disposition. This subsection is based on Article 34(a) and<br />

paragraph 35 a of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). See Article 22.<br />

(b) National security matters. This subsection is based on the<br />

second and third sentences of the second paragraph of paragraph<br />

3 3 f o f M C M , 1 9 6 9 ( R e v . ) a n d A r t i c l e 4 3 ( e ) . I t h a s b e e n<br />

broadened to expressly recognize the authority of service Secretaries<br />

to promulgate regulations governing disposition of sensitive<br />

cases. Note that the rule applies regardless of whether hostilities<br />

exist, although as the discussion notes the Article 43(e) procedure<br />

ANALYSIS<br />

App. 21, R.C.M. 502(a)<br />

for suspending the statute of limitations could only be used in<br />

time of war.<br />

CHAPTER V. COURT-MARTIAL COMPOSITION<br />

AND PERSONNEL; CONVENING COURT-<br />

MARTIAL<br />

Rule 501 Composition and personnel of courtsmartial<br />

(a) Composition of courts-martial. This subsection is based on<br />

Article 16. Except for the change in the requirement as to the<br />

form of the request for trial by military judge alone, it is consistent<br />

with paragraph 4 a of MCM, 1969 (Rev.).<br />

(b) Counsel in general and special courts-martial. This subsection<br />

is based on Article 27(a). Except for the change concerning<br />

who details counsel (see R.C.M. 503(c)), it is consistent with<br />

paragraph 6 a of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). This subsection includes<br />

reference to detailing associate defense counsel. This is based on<br />

Article 27(a), as amended Pub.L. No. 98 –209, § 3(c), (f), 97 Stat.<br />

1393 (1983).<br />

(c) Other personnel. This subsection is based on paragraph 7 of<br />

MCM, 1969 (Rev.).<br />

Rule 502 Qualifications and duties of personnel<br />

of courts-martial<br />

(a) Members. Subsection (1) is based on Article 25(a), (b) and (c)<br />

and on the first paragraph of paragraph 4 b and paragraph 4 d of<br />

MCM, 1969 (Rev.). Factors which disqualify a person from serving<br />

as a member are listed in R.C.M. 912(f)(1).<br />

The discussion is based on the second paragraph of paragraph 4<br />

b of MCM, 1969 (Rev.).<br />

The references to use of members of the National Oceanic and<br />

Atmospheric Administration and of the Public Health Service<br />

carry forward the similar provision at paragraph 4 b of MCM,<br />

1969 (Rev.). Similar provisions have been included in naval practice<br />

since at least 1937. See, e.g., Naval Courts and Boards § 347<br />

(1937, 1945 reprint). The similar provision in MCM, 1951 was<br />

upheld in United States v. Braud, 11 U.S.C.M.A. 192, 29 C.M.R.<br />

8 (1960) (Public Health Service commissioned officer served as<br />

m e m b e r o f C o a s t G u a r d c o u r t - m a r t i a l ) , d e c i s i o n b e l o w , 2 8<br />

C.M.R. 692 (C.G.B.R. 1959). Braud upheld the provision even<br />

though Article 25 is arguably ambiguous and the P.H.S. officer<br />

who served as a member had not been “militarized” and was not<br />

himself subject to the code. Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 217 (1976) (P.H.S.<br />

may be declared to be a military service in time of war; members<br />

become subject to personal jurisdiction of Code); 33 U.S.C. § 855<br />

(NOAA may be transferred by President to military service in<br />

national emergency; members become subject to personal jurisdiction<br />

of Code); Art. 2(a)(8) (jurisdiction over members of Publ<br />

i c H e a l t h S e r v i c e a n d o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n c e S e r v i c e s<br />

Administration). The Environmental Science Services Administration,<br />

which succeeded the Coast and Geodetic Survey mentioned<br />

in some earlier Manuals, is now defunct. Its functions were transferred<br />

to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.<br />

Reorg. Plan No. 4 of 1970, 3 C.F.R. 1075 (1966–1970 Comp.),<br />

reprinted in 84 Stat. 2090. NOAA has only a commissioned<br />

officer corps. Id. § 2(f); 33 U.S.C.A. § 851 (Supp. 1981). P.H.S.<br />

A21-27

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!