Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02308/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02308-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis Bradley Juma
Appellant
Gordon N. Zelez
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

SEP a- 1989 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

CURTIS BRADLEY JUMA, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

COL. GORDON N. ZELEZ, Commandant; 

USDB, et al., 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

No. 88-2308 

(D.C. No. 87-3011) 

(D. Kan.) 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the cause is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This case raises the issue of whether the United States 

military courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed by an 

active member of the armed forces outside the United States 

against a civilian dependent. Petitioner brought this habeas 

corpus action pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2241 seeking to overturn his 

September 5, 1984 court-martial conviction, based upon his plea of 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2308 Document: 01019973448 Date Filed: 09/08/1989 Page: 1 
guilty, for rape, sodomy, and lewd and lascivious acts committed 

against his fourteen-year-old adopted daughter in Switzerland and 

Greece. The district court denied the petition. 1 

Petitioner argues that the military courts lacked 

jurisdiction for two reasons. First, because his crimes were not 

service connected, petitioner maintains that military jurisdiction 

was precluded at the time of his conviction by O'Callahan v. 

Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 272-74 (1969) (military courts have 

jurisdiction only over crimes that are service connected). 

Petitioner contends that retroactive application of the Supreme 

Court's subsequent decision in Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 

435 (1987), which overruled O'Callahan and abandoned its service 

connection requirement, would be unconstitutional. 

Second, even if the absence of a service connection did not 

preclude military jurisdiction, petitioner argues that because his 

crimes were committed within the territory of foreign sovereigns 

(Switzerland and Greece) that allegedly have primary jurisdiction, 

the United States military courts do not have jurisdiction unless 

Switzerland and Greece consent. 

The district court rejected petitioner's first argument, 

holding alternatively that: (l} Solorio should be applied 

retroactively to petitioner's case and (2} petitioner's courtmartial would have been upheld as proper, in any event, under this 

court's pre-Solorio view that O'Callahan applied only to crimes 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the cause is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2308 Document: 01019973448 Date Filed: 09/08/1989 Page: 2 
committed in the United States and that "military jurisdiction 

over crimes committed by servicemen in foreign countries is left 

untouched by O'Callahan." Hemphill v. Moseley, 443 F.2d 322, 323-

24 (10th Cir. 1971); see also Stevens v. Warden, 536 F.2d 1334, 

1336 (10th Cir.) (discussing "overseas exception" to O'Callahan 

service connection requirement), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 963 

(1976). Accord Williams v. Froehlke, 490 F.2d 998, 1001 (2d Cir. 

1974); Cappella v. United States, 624 F.2d 976, 978 (Ct. Cl. 

1980). We agree with this second rationale offered by the 

district court, and therefore we need not address the 

retroactivity issue. O'Callahan has never been thought, in this 

Circuit, to preclude the jurisdiction of the military courts over 

crimes committed in foreign countries by United States military 

personnel. Therefore, we do not need to rely on the fact that 

Solorio overruled O'Callahan in order to sustain military 

jurisdiction in this case. 

The district court did not consider petitioner's second 

argument that the military courts lacked jurisdiction in this case 

because of the primary jurisdiction of the foreign states where 

petitioner committed his criminal acts. The Code of Military 

Justice ("the Code") applies to "[m]embers of a regular component 

of the armed forces," and it is operative within and outside the 

United States. 10 u.s.c. §§ 802(a)(l), 805. The Code also 

applies to "persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the 

armed forces outside the United States," but that provision is 

"[s]ubject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States 

is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2308 Document: 01019973448 Date Filed: 09/08/1989 Page: 3 
law." 10 U.S.C. § 802(a}(ll}. No similar proviso modifies 

§ 802(a}(l}. 

There can be little doubt that petitioner was a ''member" of 

the armed forces within the meaning of§ 802(a}(l), rather than 

one who merely is ''serving with" the military under§ 802(a}(ll}. 

The latter term appears to refer to personnel who are allied with, 

but do not actually belong to, the United States armed forces. 

See R.C.M. 202(a} Discussion (noting that§ 802(a}(l} applies to 

members of the United States military who are on active duty and 

that§ 802(a}(ll} applies to civilians}. 

Congress expressly provided in§ 802(a}(ll} that treaties and 

established rules of customary international law prevail if they 

conflict with§ 802(a}(ll}. By contrast, Congress was silent as 

to the effect of treaties and principles of customary 

international law that are inconsistent with§ 802(a}(l}. 2 

However, we need not decide whether§ 802(a}(l} would prevail over 

contrary or inconsistent treaties or established rules of 

customary international law because the petitioner here has not 

shown us any such treaty or rule of customary international law. 3 

2 The Supreme Court, concluding that the Supremacy Clause 

places treaties and statutes "on the same footing,'' has held that 

where an act of Congress conflicts with a self-executing treaty, 

''the one last in date will control the other." Whitney v. 

Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888). 

3 Petitioner cites Wilson v. 

which states, in relevant part: 

Girard, 354 U.S. 524, 529 (1957), 

A sovereign nation has exclusive jurisdiction to punish 

offenses against its laws committed within its borders, 

unless it expressly or impliedly consents to surrender 

its jurisdiction. (Emphasis added}. 

[Footnote continued ... ] 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2308 Document: 01019973448 Date Filed: 09/08/1989 Page: 4 
Further, our own research has not revealed any such rule or 

treaty4 that would prevent the United States here from asserting 

jurisdiction over a member of its armed forces who has engaged in 

extraterritorial criminal acts against a civilian dependent United 

States citizen in violation of the Code. 

The plain language of the Code supports jurisdiction over 

petitioner, and there is no contrary treaty or rule of customary 

international law. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the 

district court. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

[ ••• footnote continued] 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Under that principle, Switzerland and Greece retain the exclusive 

right to prosecute petitioner for violating their laws. However, 

because the United States has convicted petitioner of violating 

United States military law, not Greek or Swiss law, the United 

States has respected that principle. See Stevens v. Warden, 536 

F.2d 1334, 1336 (10th Cir.) ("[O]ne who violates the law of two 

sovereigns is subject to prosecution by both and may not complain 

of or choose the manner in which each proceeds against him."), 

cert. denied, 429 U.S. 963 (1976). 

4 The United States and Greece have entered into a treaty 

subsequent to the enactment of the Code under which Greece agrees, 

upon request of the United States, to waive its primary right to 

exercise jurisdiction over persons subject to United States 

military law, except when "it is of particular importance that 

jurisdiction be exercised by the Greek authorities." Agreement 

Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Greece 

Concerning the Status of United States Forces in Greece, Sept. 7, 

1956, Art. II, ~ 1, 7 U.S.T. 2555, 2558, T.I.A.S. No. 3649. 

However, nothing in the record suggests that the United States has 

not complied with the treaty. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-2308 Document: 01019973448 Date Filed: 09/08/1989 Page: 5