United States v. Murphy, 50 M.J. 4

First Principles: Jurisdiction: In Personam

1. concerning whether American authorities obtained jurisdiction over appellant in contravention of treaty (the NATO SOFA), appellant has no standing to object to the process as the determination of which nation will exercise jurisdiction is a matter for the nations and not a right of the suspect or accused
2. even if US military authorities misled German authorities with respect to jurisdictional process under the NATO SOFA, court-martial was not without jurisdiction over appellant who was at all times a soldier in the US Army and thus had required military status to confer jurisdiction in the court-martial

Military Justice Personnel: Defense Function: Detailed Military Counsel

1. an accused is entitled to conflict free representation, a right which compels that counsel discuss any potential or actual conflicts of interest with the accused and that the military judge sua sponte resolve conflict questions on the record
2. multiple representation, even if unexplained on the record, creates a presumption that a conflict of interests existed; the presumption can be rebutted by actual facts focusing on the question of whether the multiple representation in a particular setting resulted in an actual conflict of interests
3. although convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that unresolved conflict of interests did not prejudice appellant with respect to findings, court could not say with confidence that testimony at center of potential conflict had no impact on members’ deliberations on sentence
4. in evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-pronged test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), this court does not scrutinize each and every movement or statement of counsel; rather, the court satisfies itself that an accused has had counsel who, by his or her representation, made the adversarial process work
5. although counsel who are learned in the law applicable to capital cases are less likely to provide inadequate representation than those who are not learned in the law, the court will nonetheless look to the adequacy of counsel’s performance, rather than viewing the limited experience of counsel as an inherent defect, to determine whether the accused was deprived of a fair trial, one where the results are reliable
6. (although large quantity of psychiatric and psychological information gathered more than two years after trial could not be considered in support of a petition for new trial under Article 73, UCMJ, and RCM 1210(f), an appellate court can look at the material in testing for prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 446 U.S. 668
7. (1984); in determining whether a given result obtained in the court-martial process is reliable, such matters may be considered and tested to determine whether “[t]he newly discovered evidence, if considered by a court-martial in the light of all other pertinent evidence, would probably produce a substantially more favorable result for the accused”)

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Capital Punishment

1. a capital case - or at least this capital case - is not ordinary, and counsels’ inexperience in this sort of litigation is a factor that contributes to our ultimate lack of confidence in the reliability of the result: a judgment of death
2. to reach a reliable result in a capital case, the adversarial system must be functioning properly; for that system to work, the key ingredients are: competent counsel; full and fair opportunity to present exculpatory evidence; individualized sentencing procedures; fair opportunity to obtain the services of experts; and fair and impartial judges and juries
3. appellant did not get full and fair capital sentencing hearing where: conflict of interests issue was not resolved; mitigating effect of post-trial evidence of mental status could not be determined; impact of lack of training and experience of trial defense counsel in defending capital cases was unclear

Trial Stages: Appeals: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. in reviewing a capital case, CAAF will follow statutory mandate that “[a] finding or sentence of court-martial may not be held incorrect on the ground of an error of law unless the error materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused; however, in so doing, the CAAF will ensure that fundamental notions of due process, full and fair hearings, competent counsel, and above all, a “reliable result,” are all part of the equation to ensure that the military member has received a fair trial

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. although large quantity of psychiatric and psychological information gathered more than two years after trial could not be considered in support of a petition for new trial under Article 73, UCMJ, and RCM 1210(f), an appellate court can look at the material in testing for prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 446 U.S. 668 (1984); in determining whether a given result obtained in the court-martial process is reliable, such matters may be considered and tested to determine whether “[t]he newly discovered evidence, if considered by a court-martial in the light of all other pertinent evidence, would probably produce a substantially more favorable result for the accused”

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. in reviewing a capital case, CAAF will follow statutory mandate that “[a] finding or sentence of court-martial may not be held incorrect on the ground of an error of law unless the error materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused; however, in so doing, the CAAF will ensure that fundamental notions of due process, full and fair hearings, competent counsel, and above all, a “reliable result,” are all part of the equation to ensure that the military member has received a fair trial

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: Generally

1. concerning whether American authorities obtained jurisdiction over appellant in contravention of treaty (the NATO SOFA), appellant has no standing to object to the process as the determination of which nation will exercise jurisdiction is a matter for the nations and not a right of the suspect or accused