CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic

U.S. v. Wiesen, 57 M.J. 48

Decided Jul 10, 2002 · No. 01-0134/AR · 2002 Term · Opinion (PDF)

Digested under 3 topics

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Right to a Jury Trial

  1. (Recon.)(Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury does not apply to courts-martial; who may serve on a court-martial is governed instead by Article 25, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 825, which permits the convening authority – the official who has exercised prosecutorial discretion in the case – personally to select the members of the court-martial panel)

Military Justice Personnel: Court Members: Challenges for Cause

  1. (Recon.) (the burden of establishing grounds for a challenge for cause rests upon the party making the challenge)
  2. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces did not improperly established a per se rule requiring disqualification of a senior member who writes or endorses an efficiency report for a junior member; it is well settled that a senior-subordinate/rating relationship does not per se require disqualification of a panel member
  3. a defense challenge of a panel member for cause based on implied bias met its burden of establishing grounds for a challenge by referencing the member's supervisory position over six of the other nine panel members, a fact established during voir dire
  4. (Recon.)(implied bias is defined in terms of a bias viewed through the eyes of the public)
  5. (Recon.)(in a case involving a court member with a supervisory position over six of the other nine panel members, implied bias is appropriately viewed in the context of public perceptions of a system in which the commander who exercises prosecutorial discretion is the official who selects and structures the panel that will hear the case)

Military Justice Personnel: Court Members: Eligibility/Selection

  1. (Recon.)(Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury does not apply to courts-martial; who may serve on a court-martial is governed instead by Article 25, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 825, which permits the convening authority – the official who has exercised prosecutorial discretion in the case – personally to select the members of the court-martial panel)
Source and status

This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.

Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).