Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
v.
David E. GILLEY, Technical Sergeant
U. S. Air Force, Appellant
No. 00-0559
Crim. App. No. 32877
________________________________________________________________
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued November 15, 2000
Decided November 15, 2001
BAKER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GIERKE and
EFFRON, JJ., joined. CRAWFORD, C.J., filed an opinion concurring in
part and in the result. SULLIVAN, S.J., filed an opinion concurring
in part and dissenting in part.
Counsel
For Appellant: Major Jeffrey A. Vires (argued); Lieutenant
Colonel James R. Wise and Lieutenant Colonel Timothy W. Murphy
(on brief); Major Stephen P. Kelly and Major Thomas R. Uiselt.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Karen L. Manos (argued);
Colonel Anthony P. Dattilo, Lieutenant Colonel Ronald A.
Rodgers, and Captain Christa S. Cothrel (on brief); Lieutenant
Colonel William B. Smith.
Military Judge:
Howard R. Altschwager
II.
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL DURING THE POST-TRIAL PHASE OF HIS
COURT-MARTIAL.
For the reasons cited below, as to Issue I, we hold the
military judge did not commit plain error.
However, as to Issue
further action.
FACTS
Appellant was convicted of committing indecent acts on his
three stepchildren (ages ten to fourteen), and committing an
assault and battery on a stepdaughter.
On July
On August 1, 1996, SA
The
Next, the
On cross-examination trial
A:
(Emphasis added.)
Then the
ADC:
MJ:
Overruled.
WIT:
MJ:
ATC:
WIT:
No, sir.
(Emphasis added.)
On direct examination,
On cross-
A:
(Emphasis added.)
witnesss response.
He just
A:
Yes.
Overruled.
(Emphasis added.)
Also on redirect examination, in questioning SA Washington
as to whether a rights advisement was provided after the
preparation of the statement, the following exchange took place:
Q:
A:
No.
Q:
Why not?
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
No, sir.
(Emphasis added.)
10
The
draw any inference adverse to the accused from the fact that he
did not testify as a witness.
The
All Manual provisions are identical to the ones in effect at the time of
appellants court-martial, unless otherwise indicated. RCM 1105(b) was
amended after appellants court-martial, but the amendment was minor and has
no impact on the content of this opinion.
11
In this
This
12
13
I did not
14
U.S. 609, 614 (1965); see also Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S.
308, 319 (1976); Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333, 338 (1978);
United States v. Ruiz, 54 MJ 138 (2000).
Violations of the
Chapman v.
15
Daoud, 741 F.2d 478, 480 (1st Cir. 1984)(analysis for comments
regarding right to remain silent is the same as for right to
counsel); United States v. Kallin, 50 F.3d 689, 693 (9th Cir.
1995)(right to counsel included in Miranda warnings and
therefore carries implicit assurance that invocation carries no
penalties).
We also recognize the Supreme Courts holding that the
Government is permitted to make a fair response to claims made
by the defense, even when a Fifth Amendment right is at stake.
United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 32 (1988); see also
Doyle, supra at 619-20 n.11 (It goes almost without saying that
the fact of post-arrest silence could be used by the prosecution
to contradict a defendant who testifies to an exculpatory
version of events and claims to have told the police the same
version upon arrest.
Robinson
16
case.
The defense counsel in Robinson, in closing, argued
several times that the Government did not allow the defendant,
who did not testify, to explain his side of the story.
Following this closing and out of the presence of the jury, the
prosecution objected to the remarks of defense counsel and
contended that the defense had opened the door.
28.
485 U.S. at
remarked that the defendant could have taken the stand and
explained it to you, anything he wanted to.
Id.
Nonetheless, the
Id. at 28-29.
17
Id. at 32.
Id.
Id. at 33,
United States
n.15.
There are two aspects to the first granted issue, i.e.,
whether the military judge committed plain error: (1) by
admitting evidence that when questioned by investigators,
18
SA Washington
19
Consistent
In the
Had the
20
We need not
the context in which the issue arose here, we are convinced that
there was no material prejudice to appellants substantial
rights.
First,
21
Second, he
Finally, on
That is why
Defense counsel
argued that that scenario did not make sense, but that common
sense and your knowledge of the ways of the world say that if
somebody types something up for you to sign, you read it and if
it is not true, you dont sign it.
In reviewing the actions of the military judge, we must
ask whether, given the defense theory of the case, trial
22
Here,
As we have
23
318 (CMA 1993), this Court held that it was improper to comment
on the exercise of the right to remain silent.
Although closely
51 MJ at 397 (citation
24
First, it was
The first
investigator was a civilian, and only when the case was turned
over to the military did SA Richardson and SA Washington become
involved.
Third, the
25
matters.
1994).
26
As we
Id.
The letter
27
Those
dumb ass Air Force judges, lawyers, and jurors all thrown
together wouldnt make one good civilian lawyer.
Res ipsa
loquitor.
We expect that a convening authority in the exercise of
his clemency power will anticipate and deal professionally with
the heartfelt disappointment and confusion of a family trying to
comprehend the trial, conviction, and sentencing of a son or
daughter.
Appellants affidavit
28
Alternatively,
Finally, while we
29
40 MJ at 240.
Thereafter, the
30
But a defendant
However, these
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have
the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. U.S. Const. amend. VI.
2
No person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself.... Id. at amend. V.
3
See, e.g., United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 (1980).
4
See, e.g., Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965).
5
See Havens, supra.
For this
The defense in
In limine
Defense
and the trial judge agreed that this question opened the door
for a different agent to testify about other information
provided by Washington -- information that revealed the trucks
ownership, how the money was collected, how the money was given
to Washington, and who was giving directions concerning where to
hide it in the truck.
The Court
Id.
Id. at 626.
the trial.
once observed:
A criminal trial is not a tea dance, but an
adversary proceeding to arrive at the truth. Both
sides may forcefully urge their positions so long as
they are supported by the evidence. Considering the
trial counsels closing argument in toto, it was
within the bounds of fair comment considering the
state of the evidence.
United States v. Rodriguez, 28 MJ 1016, 1023 (AFCMR 1989).
For the reasons mentioned above, I concur in the result as
to Issue I and concur on Issue II.
Id. at (25).
of United
Issue I
Trial Counsels Argument
(Plain Error)
As a preliminary matter, I must note my disagreement with the
majority that trial counsels references in his closing argument
to appellants pretrial request for counsel reflected
negatively on his right to counsel and, therefore, constituted
error.
___ MJ at (23).
See generally
By
concurring).
It
Id. at 734.
(1951); United States v. Lee, 1 USCMA 212, 216, 2 CMR 118, 122
(1952).
See United
Court today also rejects this approach, albeit sub silentio, and
returns to our traditional and well-established position of
following Supreme Court precedent on this matter.
It has
Unlike the majority, I agree with and adopt the lower courts
common sense view of the family letters.
Appeals found: