CAAFlog
  • Home

CAAFlog

Week in Review

12/11/2021

4 Comments

 

Army Court of Criminal Appeals

United States v. Thompson. Appellant pled guilty in accordance with a PTA to conspiracy to murder with premeditation and as an aider an abettor to premeditated murder. He was sentenced to Life and a DD.

On appeal ACCA sets aside the finding of x because the plea was improvident. A rehearing is allowed. Some briefs are available here. The issue is whether he had a "guilty mind." Or as ACCA says, "Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea, 'the act alone does not amount to guilt; it must be accompanied by a guilty mind."' United States v. Hill, 55 Fed. 3d 1197, 1202 (6th Cir. 1995).
Appellant now asserts the military judge abused his discretion by accepting  his plea of guilty, arguing that the record discloses a substantial basis in law and  fact for questioning the plea. We agree. To quote Bailey, appellant's guilty plea admitted to an "evil-doing hand" but not an "evil-meaning mind." Stated another way, appellant's pica established the actus reus but not the requisite mens rea  necessary for a conviction as a principal to premeditated murder under an aider and abettor theory. 
Keep in mind this is a guilty plea case and must be analyzed for an abuse of discretion. See Moratalla, CAAFlog, Dec. 7, 2021. Essentially the court finds that Appellant's responses during the plea colloquy set up a substantial question because, "Guilty pleas "must be analyzed in terms of providence of the plea, not sufficiency of the evidence." United States v. Faircloth, 45 M.J. 1 72, 17 4 (C.A.A.F. 1996). 
In Nye & Nissen v. United States, the Supreme Court made clear that the mens rea for criminal liability as a principal under an aider and abettor theory is one of shared intent. 336 U.S. 613 (1949). " In order to aid and abet another to commit a rime it is necessary that a defendant 'in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed."' Id. at 619 ( quoting L. Hand, J ., in United  States v. Peoni, 100 F.2d 401, 402 (2d Cir. 1938)). The Supreme Court reaffirmed its adherence to Judge Learned Hand's concept of shared intent in Rosemond v. United States, referring to Judge Hand's formulation, quoted above, as a "canonical
formulation of that needed state of mind [; a formulation] later appropriated by this Court." 572 U.S. 65, 76 (2014).
The court observes that "Federal Circuit Court jurisprudence" is informative in interpreting the similar statute of UCMJ art. 877. So it adopts a shared intent theory of liability. The court found a number of statements in providency to be unhelpful in affirming the plea.
  • he bore [the victim] "no ill will or malice"
  • he "didn't desire for them to be killed"
  • he "hoped nobody would be hurt" 
The "duality is paradoxical and cannot be reconciled" with the mens rea required. And, the military judge made a clemency recommendation stressing the three quotes. Which the court interpreted as an admission that the MJ did not believe an essential element had been met.

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

United States v. Delgado.
  • Forum and pleas: MJA GP.
  • Findings. Sexual abuse of a child.
  • Sentence. Seven years, TF, RiR, DD.
Issues. (1) Sentence inappropriately severe; was required to spend 30 days in segregated confinement; and (2) denied speedy appellate review; Government took 46 days to docket his case with the Court.
Result. Findings and sentence affirmed.
Some facts.
Appellant was initially screened as a medium security prisoner. However, the Command Duty Officer [CDO] performing the screening decided to override this initial classification due to the length of Appellant’s sentence and classified him as a maximum security prisoner. As a result, Appellant was placed in segregated confinement away from general-population prisoners.

​Within the segregated confinement section of the MCF, there were multiple cells, at least two of which were occupied for most of Appellant’s time there. Thus, he was able to converse with other prisoners in segregated confinement while each of them remained in their respective cells. For only a few of Appellant’s 30 days in segregated confinement was he the only person in that section. He does not allege that he was denied life's necessities during this period. In addition, he was permitted to have visitors, watch television, and avail himself of telephone privileges. 
Appellant exhausted admin remedies, without success.
Court finds the Brig properly applied and followed instructions without any "ill motive."
Court is "reluctant to second guess" here.

Potential appellate case

United States v. Cadet JM. Trial starts Monday on allegations of sexual abuse of a child.

Cheers, Phil Cave

4 Comments
Justin Oshana
12/11/2021 06:30:32 pm

What does “potential appellate case” mean? Doesn’t every court-martial qualify? Without any other explanation that seems like an odd thing to include.

Reply
Philip D. Cave link
12/11/2021 08:05:29 pm

JO, yes and no, you are correct.

However, I make an editorial decision that some cases are more likely to result in a qualifying sentence than others. By that I mean more likely to get a punitive discharge and/or more than one year. That, for me is the discriminator.

Reply
Justin Oshana
12/11/2021 08:17:56 pm

Got it. I take that to mean that there is only one GCM happening across the services in the coming week that meet that threshold? I guess I’d be surprised but with the declining numbers over the last decade maybe I shouldn’t be.

Reply
Philip D. Cave link
12/11/2021 08:27:15 pm

I have a lot of bots or "searches" that collect info on "court-martial" or something similar. Those bots only collect what's in the media or on social media. So I agree, there are likely cases out there that don't hit the media and my "inbox."

Interestingly, the annual reports for 2020 showed a decline in courts, whereas 2021 is showing a slight increase. I suspect there are many factors that account for a swing in annual or monthly stats.


Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Links
    CAAF
    -Daily Journal
    -Current Term Opinions
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    Joint R. App. Pro.
    Global MJ Reform
    LOC Mil. Law
    Army Lawyer
    Resources

    Categories

    All
    Daily Journal
    MJ Reform
    Question Time
    Scholarship
    Top Of The Year 2021
    Unanimous
    Week In Review

    Archives

    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020

The views expressed on this website are expressed in the authors' personal capacities.
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home