U.S. v. Martinez, 67 M.J. 59

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. in close cases, military judges are enjoined to liberally grant challenges for cause

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. in a sentencing case where appellant pleaded guilty to a single specification of drug use, statements of senior member of court-martial panel during voir dire that a sentence of no punishment was not an option and that there would be no room in his Air Force for people who abused drugs cast substantial doubt on that member’s fairness or impartiality, requiring his removal for cause; when questioned by the military judge, the member’s responses were qualified, if not hesitant; although the member later disavowed an inelastic attitude toward a punitive discharge, he did not disavow an inelastic attitude toward punishment; because his response was qualified and inelastic as to the necessity of some punishment, these responses, combined with the fact that he was the senior member of the panel, would lead an objective observer to question whether appellant received a fair sentencing hearing; as such, there was a substantial doubt as to the fairness or impartiality of the member in question, and in light of the cases dealing with implied bias and the liberal grant mandate, the military judge abused his discretion in not granting the challenge for cause

Military Justice Personnel: Court Members: Generally

1. an accused is entitled to a fair and impartial panel of members; consistent with that enjoinder, the accused is entitled to have his case heard by members who are not predisposed or committed to a particular punishment, or who do not possess an inelastic attitude toward the punitive outcome

Military Justice Personnel: Court Members: Challenges for Cause

1. in close cases, military judges are enjoined to liberally grant challenges for cause
2. an accused is entitled to a fair and impartial panel of members; consistent with that enjoinder, the accused is entitled to have his case heard by members who are not predisposed or committed to a particular punishment, or who do not possess an inelastic attitude toward the punitive outcome
3. in a sentencing case where appellant pleaded guilty to a single specification of drug use, statements of senior member of court-martial panel during voir dire that a sentence of no punishment was not an option and that there would be no room in his Air Force for people who abused drugs cast substantial doubt on that member’s fairness or impartiality, requiring his removal for cause; when questioned by the military judge, the member’s responses were qualified, if not hesitant; although the member later disavowed an inelastic attitude toward a punitive discharge, he did not disavow an inelastic attitude toward punishment; because his response was qualified and inelastic as to the necessity of some punishment, these responses, combined with the fact that he was the senior member of the panel, would lead an objective observer to question whether appellant received a fair sentencing hearing; as such, there was a substantial doubt as to the fairness or impartiality of the member in question, and in light of the cases dealing with implied bias and the liberal grant mandate, the military judge abused his discretion in not granting the challenge for cause