U.S. v. Rudometkin, 82 M.J. 396

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. RCM 902(a) requires a military judge to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which that military judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned
2. RCM 915(a) provides that a military judge may declare a mistrial when manifestly necessary in the interest of justice because of circumstances arising during the proceedings which cast substantial doubt upon the fairness of the proceedings

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. the general rule is that a military judge’s determination on a mistrial will not be reversed absent clear evidence of an abuse of discretion
2. a military judge abuses his or her discretion when: (1) the military judge predicates a ruling on findings of fact that are not supported by the evidence of record, (2) the military judge uses incorrect legal principles, (3) the military judge applies correct legal principles to the facts in a way that is clearly unreasonable, or (4) the military judge fails to consider important facts
3. in this case that involved an accused who was convicted of rape, aggravated sexual assault, assault consummated by a battery, and adultery, assuming that the military judge should have disqualified himself due to his own inappropriate relationship with another servicemember’s wife, the reviewing judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the accused’s motion for a mistrial where the reviewing judge considered the general similarity of the accused’s misconduct and that of the military judge, emphasized that the military judge was not aware that he was suspected of adultery until after the trial and first post-trial session in which the accused’s sentence was reduced, determined that the administrative investigation into the military judge’s conduct made it very unlikely that injustices would occur in other cases, and concluded that a reasonable member of the public, knowing all the facts and circumstances, to include not only the suspicious personal relationship between the military judge and the other servicemember’s wife, but the sentence, sentence reduction, and crux of the case involving rape and violence against women, would not lose confidence in the justice system

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Conduct/Misconduct

1. RCM 902(a) requires a military judge to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which that military judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned
2. three factors are considered to determine if a remedy is warranted for a judge’s failure to recuse himself: (1) the risk of injustice to the parties in the case; (2) the risk that the denial of relief will produce injustice in other cases; and (3) the risk of undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process
3. in this case that involved an accused who was convicted of rape, aggravated sexual assault, assault consummated by a battery, and adultery, assuming that the military judge should have disqualified himself due to his own inappropriate relationship with another servicemember’s wife, the reviewing judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the accused’s motion for a mistrial where the reviewing judge considered the general similarity of the accused’s misconduct and that of the military judge, emphasized that the military judge was not aware that he was suspected of adultery until after the trial and first post-trial session in which the accused’s sentence was reduced, determined that the administrative investigation into the military judge’s conduct made it very unlikely that injustices would occur in other cases, and concluded that a reasonable member of the public, knowing all the facts and circumstances, to include not only the suspicious personal relationship between the military judge and the other servicemember’s wife, but the sentence, sentence reduction, and crux of the case involving rape and violence against women, would not lose confidence in the justice system

Trial Stages: Merits: Mistrial

1. the general rule is that a military judge’s determination on a mistrial will not be reversed absent clear evidence of an abuse of discretion
2. RCM 915(a) provides that a military judge may declare a mistrial when manifestly necessary in the interest of justice because of circumstances arising during the proceedings which cast substantial doubt upon the fairness of the proceedings
3. in this case that involved an accused who was convicted of rape, aggravated sexual assault, assault consummated by a battery, and adultery, assuming that the military judge should have disqualified himself due to his own inappropriate relationship with another servicemember’s wife, the reviewing judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the accused’s motion for a mistrial where the reviewing judge considered the general similarity of the accused’s misconduct and that of the military judge, emphasized that the military judge was not aware that he was suspected of adultery until after the trial and first post-trial session in which the accused’s sentence was reduced, determined that the administrative investigation into the military judge’s conduct made it very unlikely that injustices would occur in other cases, and concluded that a reasonable member of the public, knowing all the facts and circumstances, to include not only the suspicious personal relationship between the military judge and the other servicemember’s wife, but the sentence, sentence reduction, and crux of the case involving rape and violence against women, would not lose confidence in the justice system

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

1. the general rule is that a military judge’s determination on a mistrial will not be reversed absent clear evidence of an abuse of discretion
2. an appellate court need not decide a preliminary issue when it can avoid doing so by assuming the answer
3. three factors are considered to determine if a remedy is warranted for a judge’s failure to recuse himself: (1) the risk of injustice to the parties in the case; (2) the risk that the denial of relief will produce injustice in other cases; and (3) the risk of undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process
4. a military judge abuses his or her discretion when: (1) the military judge predicates a ruling on findings of fact that are not supported by the evidence of record, (2) the military judge uses incorrect legal principles, (3) the military judge applies correct legal principles to the facts in a way that is clearly unreasonable, or (4) the military judge fails to consider important fact