U.S. v. Norfleet, 53 M.J. 262

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Due Process

1. where appellant was tried by an impartial military judge, she was not denied due process although she was not tried by a military judge from another service; there was no legal requirement to provide a military judge from another service; and, absent a showing that such action was taken in other cases in a manner that created a pattern of discrimination against enlisted persons or a suspect class, there was no merit in the claim of denial of due process

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Generally

1. military judges are expected to render decisions that may adversely impact on their superior officers; such decisions by the military judiciary are essential to the maintenance of a military justice system that not only is fair, but that also is perceived to be fair by members of the armed forces and the public

Military Justice Personnel: Court Members: Peremptory Challenges

1. the differences between civilian trials and courts-martial practice warrant a different standard for assessing the validity of reasons offered in support of a contested peremptory challenge: military counsel must articulate a racially or gender neutral explanation that is not implausible, or that otherwise makes no sense
2. where counsel offers an explanation for a peremptory challenge that reveals patently impermissible discrimination, purposeful discrimination will not be sheltered under the umbrella of a separate proper basis for that peremptory challenge
3. trial counsel’s reference to a dispute between a court member and the legal office set forth a reasonable, gender-neutral basis for a peremptory challenge; this basis was upheld where second articulated basis was not inherently discriminatory and was not shown to be merely a pretext

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

1. the decision of a military judge not to recuse himself or herself is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion