U.S. v. Hohman, 70 M.J. 98

Military Justice Personnel: Defense Function: Generally

1. RCM 505(d)(2)(B) and 506(c) provide specific options for severance of the attorney-client relationship; among those options, defense counsel may be excused by the military judge upon application for withdrawal by the defense counsel for good cause shown
2. although separation from active duty normally terminates a military attorney’s representation of his client, highly contextual circumstances may warrant an exception from this general guidance in a particular case
3. assignment of a new detailed trial defense counsel was sufficient to remedy the military judge’s procedural error in the severance of the status of the former detailed defense counsel upon his departure from active duty, given the responsibilities of the former counsel in relation to the defense team

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. the military judge erred in this case by not taking appropriate action to address detailed trial defense counsel’s departure from active duty during a court-martial at the expiration of his active service; RCM 505(d)(2)(B) and 506(c) provide specific options for severance of the attorney-client relationship; among those options, defense counsel may be excused by the military judge upon application for withdrawal by the defense counsel for good cause shown; where the parties have indicated that a defense member has been excused under RCM 505(d)(2)(B), the military judge must ensure under RCM 813(c) that: (1) the record demonstrates that a competent detailing authority has determined that good cause exists for excusing counsel; and (2) that the record sets forth the basis for the good cause determination; in the present case, the military judge failed to place any of the approved reasons for severing the attorney-client relationship on the record prior to the departure of the detailed trial defense counsel from active duty

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. an appellate court tests for prejudice a military judge’s error in failing to place any of the approved reasons for severing the attorney-client relationship on the record prior to the departure of the detailed trial defense counsel from active duty
2. assignment of a new detailed trial defense counsel was sufficient to remedy the military judge’s procedural error in the severance of the status of the former detailed defense counsel upon his departure from active duty, given the responsibilities of the former counsel in relation to the defense team

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

1. an appellate court tests for prejudice a military judge’s error in failing to place any of the approved reasons for severing the attorney-client relationship on the record prior to the departure of the detailed trial defense counsel from active duty