U.S. v. Bradley, 51 M.J. 437

Military Justice Personnel: Staff Judge Advocate: Responsibilities

1. staff judge advocate may not engage in conduct which dissuades defense witnesses from testifying truthfully at courts-martial; staff judge advocate’s conversation with a defense witness did not result in any prejudice to the accused where, although the witness lost some enthusiasm for testifying, she decided to testify and did in fact testify, and appellant did not show what, if any, testimony was withheld by the witness as a result of conversation with staff judge advocate

Trial Stages: Post-Trial Hearings: DuBay / Factfinding Hearings

1. a fact-finding hearing is not required where an accused fails to aver sufficient facts necessary to constitute a legal claim

Miscellaneous Matters: Command Influence: Generally

1. staff judge advocate may not engage in conduct which dissuades defense witnesses from testifying truthfully at courts-martial; staff judge advocate’s conversation with a defense witness did not result in any prejudice to the accused where, although the witness lost some enthusiasm for testifying, she decided to testify and did in fact testify, and appellant did not show what, if any, testimony was withheld by the witness as a result of conversation with staff judge advocate
2. there was no unlawful command influence as a matter of fact or law in the content of staff judge advocate’s ex parte conversation with president of court-martial where conversation did not concern appellant’s trial and the defense did not protest president’s further participation in this court-martial once the conversation came to light
3. an article in the base newspaper written by the special court-martial convening authority’s staff judge advocate did not amount to unlawful command influence where: (1) article was unsigned and basically reported the results of trial; and, (2) quotes attributed to a junior legal officer were consistent with his law enforcement duties and not directed at the clemency process being conducted at a distant installation by the general court-martial convening authority
4. appellant failed to aver sufficient facts to constitute a legal claim of unlawful command influence where he claimed he was denied a court member’s clemency letter, the content of which is unknown except that it may contain inadmissible post-trial statements of the member concerning his prior deliberations in this case, and there was no reasonable probability that the convening authority would have changed his action on this basis