and Ihe 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENER

of Ihe 

ARMED FORCES 


and Ihe 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


of Ihe 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

PURSUANT TO THE 


UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUST

For Ihe Period 


January I, 1971 10 December 31, 19

PROPERTY OF U.S. ARtS( 

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S S

LIBRARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ond to the 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

AND SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTA

ond the 

SECRETARIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF 

. ARMY, NAVY, AND AlB FORCE 

PURSUANT TO THE 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 

For the Period 

JonuDry I, 1971 10 December 31, 1971 
Contents 

JOINT REPORT OF THE U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEA

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL O,F THE ARMED FORC

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRAN

REPORT OF THE U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

REPORT OF THE JUDGE. ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE 

REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMEN

PORTATION (U.S. COAST GUARD) 
and the 

JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL 


OF THE ARMED FORCES 


and the 

GENERAL COUNSEL 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

January 1, 1971 to December 31, 1971 

This is tihe 20th ..Annual Reporlt of 'the Commitltee C'reat

67 (g) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S

That article requires the Judges of the Court of Military 

Judge Advocates General of the Armed Forces, and 

Counsel of the Department of Transportation to mee

survey the opeI'3JI:.ions of the Ooele and to report to the 

Armed Services of the Senate and of the House of Re

to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Tr

and to the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air F

status of military justice and on any legislative reco

the committee may have. 

The Ohief Judge and the Judges of 'the Court of Mili

the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and A

the General Counsel of the Department of Transportat

to later in this repOlt as the Code Committee, have met 

during the period this report coyers. These conferences 

sideration of possible amendments to the Uniform Cod

Justice. 

The Code Committee recommends that the Congress c

lation that would (1) specify the extent to which the Cou

Appeals, the Courts of Military Review, and military ju

terta'in petitions for extraordinary relief; (2) permit the 
The Code Committee will continue to consider othe

permit an appeal to the Supreme Court from decision

of Military Appeals in cases involving constitutional 

transfer sentencing power to the military judge in al

volving the death penalty; to expand the power of the 

in contempt matters; to provide for a system of rando

court members; to amend Arlicle 62 (a), Uniform Co

Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862 (a), to permit an appeal of an 

ruling by the prosection in certain limited categories 

as a ruling that a confession or evidence obtained as t

search is not admissible, or a determination that a spe

not allege an offense. to amend Article 69, Uniform Co

Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 869, to permit limited delegation of 

of the Judge Advocate General of an Armed Force to 

in certain courts-martillil; and to give the Judge Adv

the authority to correct errors in certain records of tr

court-martial with.out the necessity of referring such 

Court of Military Review. 

A standing committee composed of representatives 

Adv.ocates General and thf' General Counsel, Departm

portation, established originally to consider changes t

for Courts-Martial, met periodically during the past ye

such ohanges. As a result of its work, a number of c

Manual have been approved by the Judge Advocates G

General Counsel for inclusion in an executive .order. 

have br.oadened the charter of this committee to encom

consideration of recommended changes t.o the Uniform 

tary Justice, as well as to continue work on the Manua

pated that this standing committee will meet at reg

during the coming year, and the results of its studies will 

ful consideration by the Code Committee upon submissio

ice representatives. 

2 
tary magistrate," a fully qualified and certified part

judge who also is employed to issue search warrants 

\Vhether persons should be released from pretrial confi

regulation 27-10 has been amended to allow military j

certain limits, to issue search warrants. During the 

Department of the Navy undertook and completed a 

departmental regulations dealing with the administrat

which are set forth in the Manual of The Judge Advo

Among the most significant changes were improvemen

ner of procuring the attendance of civilian witnesses an

the American Bar Association Code of Professional R

Additionally, pilot programs for the assignment of 

martial judges to the Navy-Marine Corps judiciary 

inaugurated at the Naval Law Centers in Norfolk and S

Delay in the processing of disciplinary actions has bee

problem.· These delays detract from the overall qualit

justice and contribute to a feeling on the part of man

enlisted men that the military justice system is too 

bureaucratic for full effectiveness. The volume of court

nonjudicial punishment actions has not decreased in pro

reduction in the active strength of the services. Whil

endeavor to alleviate this situation by greater emphasis 

the skills of commanders and other personnel having f

nonlegal nature, we recognize that many of the delays 

errors in records of trial are caused, in part, by a shorta

enced military lawyers that is becoming more acute. 

The Code Committee considers the shortage of experie

lawyers as being perhaps the greatest threat to the effectiv

of the military justJice system. In the face of intense 

from the private sector and other Government agencies

have been unable to retain the needed number of lawyers 

initial obligated tours. While obtaining an adequate su

lawyers has not been a problem, the number of applican
g g

additional effort be devoted to improving the skills of le

court reporters. In this regard, the Secretary of the Navy 

the establishment of a "legalman" rating in the Navy. T

corps of paraprofessional personnel to relieve judge 

many burdensome administrative and clerical duties 

require the direct attention of a lawyer. The Air Force h

a new school for nonlawyer legal services specialists and 

instituted a comparable new course at the Adjutant Gen

The sectional reports of the Court and of the indiv

show the number of courts-martial subject to appellate 

the reporting period. Exhibit A that is attached rec

number of courts-martial of all types tried throughout 

number of such cases reviewed by Courts of :Military 

the number ultimately reviewed by the Court of Military 

Respectfully submitted. 

'VILLIAM H. D

O

ROBERT E. QU

Asso

ROBERT M. DU

Asso

GEORGE S. PRU

The Judge Advocat

MERLIN H. ST

The Judge Advocat

JAl'tfES S. CHE

The Judge Advocat

U.S

JOHN 'V. BAR

Genem

Department of Tra

4 
Court-Martial Ca8e8 

Army _______________________________________________________

Navy _______________________________________________________

Air Force ____________________________________________________

Coast Guard_________________________________________________

Total _________________________________________________

CaBe8 Reviewed by Court8 of Military Rev';ew 

Army _______________________________________________________

Navy _______________________________________________________

Air Force ____________________________________________________

Coast Guard _________________________________________________

Total 

Cases Docketed with U.S. Court of Military Appeals 

Army _______________________________________________________

Navy _______________________________________________________

Air Force____________________________________________________

Coast Guard_________________________________________________

Total _________________________________________________
gg

cillite Judges of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals h

their report on military justice matters to the Comm

Services of the U.S. Senate and House of Representative

of Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, and the 

the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

JUDGES 

The year 1971 was a momentous year for the C

particulars. 

On May 1, 1971, the term of Judge Homer Ferguso

retired. Fortunately, however, the court's strength was n

pursuant to Amicle 67(a) (4), Uniform Code of Mili

U.S.C. § 867(a) (4), as amended by Public Law 90-340

son elooted to become a Senior Judge. He was called 

Judge Quinn, with his consent, to perform judicial duti

cessor assumed office. Thereafter, he performed all of 

judge of t;his Court until November 29,1971. Subsequ

he acJted solely upon opinions issued in cases upon w

arguments were su'bmitted prior 00 November 29,1971

. tion of those opinions, he reverted to an inaoti ve status o

1971. 

On September 21, 1971, President Richard M. Nixo

the U.S. Senate the nomination of Judge Robert M. 

Supreme Court of Ohio, for the 15 year term expirin

The Senate Committee on Armed Services unanimous

proval of the nomination and, without objection, the n

confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 6, 1971. Mr

Stewalt of the Supreme Court of the United States a

qualifying oath and Judge Duncan entered upon his d

of this Court on November 29, 1971. 

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 67(a) (1), Un

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a) (1), on June 23, 

Nixon designated Judge 'William H. Darden as Chie

6 
p

py 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and 15 certificate

were docketed by the Court. DespiJte this increased volume 

over the previous reporting period, the work of ,the Cou

eaoh of the years it has been in operation, been maintain

rent 'basis. There is no backlog. 

OPINIONS 

The Court released 234 opinions on petitions and certi

the decisions of the Courts of Military Review below rever

or in part in 110 cases. 

The new procedures in trials by courts-martial and in t

review of records of trial by the Courts of Military Rev

by the Military Justice Act of 1968, Public Law 90-632, 8

came under the Court's scrutiny during the year. Article 

Code, was modified by the act to permit trial by genera

court-martial to be by military judge alone "if before 

assembled the accused, knowing the identity of the mi

and after consultation with defense counsel, requests in w

a trial. This is the equivalent of a "jury-waived" trial 

courts. In United States v. Dean, 20 USCMA 212, 43 CM

it appeared that trial by military judge alone was condu

basis of the accused's oral request. Since article 16 est

jurisdictional requirements for the various types of courts

held that its terms must be strictly complied with and th

request for such a trial was an indispensable jurisdiction

In United States v. Ohilcote, 20 USCMA 283, 43 CMR 1

appeared that a panel of the U.S. Navy Court of Milit

reversed the accused's conviction and ordered a rehearing

of appellate government counsel, the full membership of t

Military Review vote to reconsider the panel decision. 

sitting en bane, then reversed the earlier decision and affirm

472-135--72----2 
"Civilian supervision of courts-martial has proven its worth. 

effectiveness it must be exercised with a clear understanding o

which brought it about." 

Although this Court's membership has changed subs

that report was filed, the present members are no less 

resolve of the Congress: 

"To cure ... (the ills resulting from prior practices) and 

dence in a system that affects, directly or indirectly, so many m

can citizens in time of peace as well as of war, the Uniform C

Justice was enacted." 

'Ve are equally convinced of the potential of the Un

achieve for service personnel appearing before courts-m

of a quality at least the equal of that obtainable in the art

of the land. By adherence to that conviction, we believ

commodate both the constitutional grant of authority 

"to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of 

naval Forces," and the individual rights of service pers

without diminution of the ability of the Armed Servic

their tasks effectively. 

As our report for 1970 indicated, the decision of the S

of the Unit~d States in Noyd v. Bond, 395 U.S. 683(19G

the applicability of the All 'Yrits Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1G

Court, increased the number of petitions for extraordin

by persons at various stages of the court-martial proceed

held that such extraordinary relief may be granted upon 

an accused under one of two conditions: first, if the actio

of tends to defeat the jurisdiction of this Court ultima

the proceedings pursuant to Article 67 (b) (3), or second

complained of tends to prejudice the possibility of pro

ingful relief from any error which may, upon suc

shown to have occurred. See Lozinski v. Wetherill, 21 

44 CMR 106 (1971). 

8 
was set aside. In Oollier v. United States, 19 USC~L<\' 

113 (1970), we invalidated a vacatiQn Qf an Qrder deferri

to' cQnfinement until cQmpletiQn Qf appellate review. 

Failure Qf a cQnvening authQrity to' review and take a

record of trial as required by Article 64, UnifQrm CQ

§ 864, 10 mOl1iths after the compleltiQn Qf trial, led the C

'Writ Qf Mandamus diroot.ing the required 'actiQn fO'rthw

was compl'ied with. See, illontavon v. United States, 

Docket NO'. 70-3. 

As shQwn by its actiQns taken in many cases, repQrte

18 thrQugh 20 Qf QUI' repQrts, the CQurt will nQt enter

seeking actiQn against perSQns nQt subject to' military 

within the authQrity Qf the Department Qf Defense. N 

be affQrded in areas cQncerned sQlely with the administ

armed services. 

ADMISSIONS 

Eight hundred and twentY-Qne practitiQners were adm

the year to' membership in the bar Qf the CQurt.. The numb

admitted to' practice befQre the Court nQW tQtals 16,572. 

In additiQn, hQnQrary membership certificates to' the 

sented to' 13 attQrneys Qf the fQllQwing allied natiQns

IndQnesia 1; Iran 2; Republic Qf KQrea 1; Thailand 

Venezuela 1 ; and Republic Qf SQuth Vietnam 3. 

Judge RQbert E. Quinn presided Qver twO' special admis

The first Qn August 11, 1971, at the U.S. Air FQrce CQ

Bayswater RQad, LQndQn, England, Qn ",hich QccasiQn 

and 1 Navy Judge AdvQcates Qn active duty became m

bar Qf the CQurt; the secQnd was held Qn OctQber 15

CQurtrQQm Qf the U.S. CQurt Qf Appeals, First Circuit, B

to' admit 44 Reservists and civilian attQrneys frQm Mass

RhQde Island. Included in the grQup were the HQnQrab
10 
clubs be formed to afford an exchange of ideas and 

areas of common interests between the military and civ

ties, at the U.S. Naval Air Station Quonset Point, R.I

military versus civil law. 

February 24.-Judge Quinn delivered a lecture on 

military justice before the Speaker's Forum under the 

the Student Bar Association at the 'Vashington School o

can University, 'Washington, D.C. 

March 8.-Judge Quinn addressed the senior ROTC 

subject of military justice by invitation of the Milita

partment at the University of Rhode Island, Kingston

ture was followed by a luncheon on campus held in hi

March 9.-Judge Quinn represented and spoke on 

judiciary at the testimonial dinner of Col. Howard A. 

his 'resignation after 37 years of service in the Prov

Department, the last 8 of them as Chief, to accept a po

New England Organized Crime Intelligence System, 

Country Club, Cranston, R.I. 

March 17.-Mr. Alfred O. Proulx, clerk of the court

Combined East and 'Vest Coast Naval Reserve Law 

inactive Reserve JAG officers on the operation of the 

Amphibious Force Training Command, Pacific Flee

Calif. 

April 14.-Judge Quinn addressed the members of 

Boys State on the subject "The Law and the Courts,

annual meeting on Americanism, sponsored by the Am

and held at the U.S. Naval Base, Newport, R.I. 

May 6.-0hief Judge Darden addressed the Air F

'Vives Club of Washington, D.C., on the occasion of t

to the Court. 

May, 12.-0hief Judge Darden, Senior Judge Ferg

Proulx attended the annual dinner (in honor of the m

Court) , sponsored by the Military Law Committee of th
for the past year at the business meeting of the Jud

Association, held in conjunction with the New York p

annual meeting of the American Bar Association. 

July 14-20.-Judge Quinn and Mr. Proulw attended 

pated in the annual meeting of the American Bar Assoc

as the meeting and dinner of the Judge Advocates Ass

in London, England. 

July 19-30.-0hief Judge Darden attended the App

Seminar held at the New York University School of L

July 21.-0hief Oommissioner Oarney addressed the N

Officer I~awyer Seminar on the subject of the "All 1Vr

at the Naval Justice School, U.S. Naval Base, Newport, R

• July 27.-Senior Judge Ferguson addressed at Mac

Mich., the 12th Annual Congress of the Professions of 

Association of the Professions, an organization formed i

seeks to enlist the professions against crime, on the su

Opportunity and Responsibility of Professionals." On 

he was present~d the "Outstanding Service Award" of th

His remarks were included in the October 21, 1971, issu

gressional Record, pages E11123-l1125, by the Honorab

Chamberlain of Michigan. 

August lS.-Ohief Judge Darden addressed some 2

sioned officers attached to legal offices of various Air 

commands on the occasion of their visit to and tour o

facilities. 

August 2S-September 7.-Senior Judge Ferguson, 

member of the Interparliamentary Union, attended the 

ing held in Paris, France. 

September l.-Judge Quinn contributed an article e

and Order: The Effects of Judicial Delay and the Res

Judges" to the Beverly Hills Bar Association Journal, 

Calif., for its 40th Anniversary Commemorative Issue 

12 
Center. 

October 5-8.-0hief Judge Darden, Senior Judge Fe

Proulx, and Ohief Oommissioner Oarney, at the invit

Judge Advocate General of the Navy, attended the 1971 A

Judge Advocate General's Conference held in 'Vashingt

November 19.-0hief Judge Darden served on the pan

for the final round of the Region 3 finals of the 1971 Na

Court Competition between Georgetown and George 'Vash

Schools. 

November 22-24.-Judge Quinn attended, at the invitat

Judge Bailey Aldrich, the Combined Judicial Conference 

and Third Judicial Circuits of the United States in San 

December 4.-0hief Judge Da1'den and Senior Judge Fe

guests of the Bar Association for the District of Columbia 

Anniversary banquet, held at the Sheraton Park Hotel. 

STATUS OF CASES 

There is attached hereto a detailed analysis of the status 

which have been processed by the Court since the comm

its opera'iJions in 1951 (Exhibit A). 

Respectfully submitted, 

WILLIAM H. DA

Oh

ROBERT E. QUIN

Associa

ROBERT M. DUN

Associa
Total as of July I, 1969 July 

Total by Services June 30,1969 to 

June 30, 1970 June 

Petitions (Art. 67(b) (3)): 

Arrny---------------------­ 11,819 403 

~avy---------------------- 5,447 427 

Air Force ___________________ 4,744 139 

Coast Guard ________________ 52 1 

Total ____________________ 22,062 970 

Certificate8 (Art. 67(b)(2)): 

Arnly---------------------- 171 6 

~avy--------------------- 224 2 

Air Force ___________________ 92 3 

Coast Guard ______________ ~_ 8 2 

TotaL ___________________ 495 13 

Mandatory (Art. 67(b) (1)) : 

Arrny---------------------- 31 0 

~avy---------------------- 3 0 

Air Force ___________________ 3 0 

Coast Guard ________________ 0 0 

TotaL ___________________ 37 0 

Total cases docketed _______ 22,594 983 

12 Flag ollicer cases; 1 Army and 1 Navy. 
 J 24,i47 eases actually lIII!igned docket numbers. Overage due to multiple action

14 
to dismiss: 

With opinion____________ 8 0 

Without opinion_________ 43 1 

Disposed of by order setting 

aside findings and sentence__ llemanded__________________ Q 

179 

0 

2 

Co~rt action due (30 days) , __ Awaiting replies 1 ____________ 

100 

14 

71 

50 

9

2

Certificates (Art. 67(b)(2»: 

Opinions rendered___________ 480 13 

Opinions pending 3___________ 

Withdrawn _________________ 

llemanded__________________ 

3 

7 

4 

2 

1 

0 

Disposed of by order_________ 1 0 

Set for hearing 3_____________ 0 0 

lleady for hearing a__________ 0 1 

Awaiting briefs a_____________ 1 0 

Mandatory (Art. 67(b)(I»:

Opinions rendered___________ 37 0 

Opinions pending____________ llemanded__________________ 0 

1 

0 

0 

Awaiting briefs 

3_____________ 0 0 

Opinions rendered: 

Petitions___________________ 2,083 224 22

Motions to dismiss ___________ 11 0 

Motions to stay proceedings__ Per curiam grants ___________ 1 

57 

0 

0 

Certificatcs _________________ 421 10 

Certificates and petitions _____ n{andatory_________________ 56 

37 

3 

0 

Petitions remanded __________ 2 0 

Petitions for a new triaL _____ 2 0 

Petitionil for reconsideration 

of: 

DeniaIOrder____________ 9 1 

Opinion ________________ 1 3 

Petition for new triaL____ 1 0 

S"" footnotes at cnd of table. 

472-135-72--3 
TotaL ___________________ 2,693 271 

Completed cases: Petitions denied_____________ 19, Oil 713 1,

Petitions dismissed___________ 18 1 

Charges dismissed by order___ 1 0 

Petitions withdrawn_________ 386 19 

Certificates withdrawn _______ 7 1 

Certificates disposed of by order_____________________ 1 0 

Opinions rendered___________ 2,684 242 

Disposed of on motion to 

dismiss: 

With opinion____________ 8 0 

Without opinion _________ 43 1 

Disposed of by order setting 

aside findings and sentence_ 6 0 

Writ of error coram nobis by order_____________________ 3 0 

Motion for bail denied _______ 1 0 

Remanded__________________ 182 2 

TotaL ___________________ 22,411 979 1,

Miscellaneous docket Nos. assigned (1967 to present): Pending____________________ 

Granted____________________ 

Denied _____________________ 

Withdrawn _________________ 

Dismissed__________________ 

Issue moot__________________ 

70 

0 

0 

36 

1 

21 

0 

97 

0 

2 

42 

0 

28 

1 

Opinions rendered___________ 8 29 

Opinion rendered (petitions 

fbr reconsideration} ______ 1 0 

TotaL ___________________ 67 102 

See footnotl's at end of table. 

16 
TotaL _______________________ 182 190 

S As of June 30, 1009, 1970, Bnd 1971. • 3.217 cases were disposed of by 3,180 published Opinions. 160 Opinions were rendere

!l2 Almy officers, 35 Air Force officers, 24 Navy officers, 6 Marine Corps officers, 2 Coas

1 West Point cadet. In addition 19 Opinions were renderp<.\ in r~ involving 20 civU

concerned enlisted personne\. • Overage due to multiple actions on the same caseS. 
Convicted Acqu

General__________________________________ 2,571 

Special (BCD imposed) ____________________ 1, 191 

Special (w/o BCD) ________________________ 24,723 2

Summary_________________________________ 13,913 1

Total______________________________ 42,398 3

'" '" * * * * 

Records of trial by general and special (BCD im

martial received by The Judge Advooate General dur

1971: 1 

For review under Article 66 (general) _______________________

For review under Article 66 (special BCD imposed) __________

For examination under Article 69____________________________

Total _______________________________________________

'" * '" * '" * 

'Vorkloads of the Army COUlt of Military Review d

period: 

On hand at the beginning of period_________________________

General courts-martiaL________________________________

Special courts-martial (BCD imposed) __________________

Iteferred for review________________________________________

General courts-martIaL_________________________________

Special courts-martiaL_________________________________

Total _______________________________________________

• Figures In this section are ba8ed on records of trial as opposed to 

Involved. Because of eases In which more than one Individual Is tried

section will be less than those In the other sections. 

1/ This figure Includes 33 cases which were referred to the Army Court 

pursuant to article 69, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 40 cases refer

37 cs!'es referred for reconsIderation, and 1 CDse forwarded to Court en 
8 Adjusted figures for Inventory, 28 May 1971. 

* * * * * * 

Actions taken during period 1 July 70 through 30 June 

Court of Military Review: 

Findings and sentence affirDled _________________________________

Findings affirmed, sentence modified___________________________

Findings affirmed, sentence reassessed, or rehearing ordered as to 

only _______________________________________________________

Findings affirmed, sentence disapproved or set aside______________

Findings partially disapproved, sentence affirmed_________________

Findings partially disapproved, rehearing ordered________________

Findings-sentence affirmed in part, disapproved in parL_________

Findings-sentence disapproved, rehearing ordered_______________

Findings-sentence disapproved, charges dismissed______________

Returned to field for new SJA or CjA action_____________________

Motion for appropriate relief, denied____________________________

Sentence commuted____________________________________________

Total __________________________________________________

Of 3,206 accused whose cases were reviewed by the Court 

Review pursuant to article 66 during the fiscal year, 

percent) requested representation by appellate defense 

* * * * * * 

The records in the cases of 516 accused were forwa

United States Court of Military Appeals pursuant to th

divisions of Article 67 (b) during fiscal year 1971. Thes

16.1 percent of the number of such cases reviewed by t

Military Review during the period. Of the mentioned 5

were forwarded on petition of accused and 11 were certifie

The Court of Military Appeals took the following actio

cases during fiscal year 1971 : 

472-135--72----4 
I>enied ____________________________________________

Field (action by SJA) ___________________________---

No jurisdiction_____________________________________

Withdrawn _______________________________________

Pending 1 July 1971________________________________________

In comp1iance with the mandate of Article 6(a), Un

Military Justice, The Judge Advocate General and s

of his staff inspected numerous judge advocate offices 

States and overseas in the supervision of the administrat

justice. 

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY ACTIVITIES 

A review of courts-martial statistics for fiscal yea

slight increase in the number of general courts-martial 

cent increase in the number of special courts-martial i

conduct discharge was adjudged and approved, desp

in the strength of the Army of approximately 200,000. 

in strength was reflected, however, in statistics on su

martial and special courts-martial not involving a ba

charge, with the number of those courts decreasing by 

20 percent. 

The authorized strength of the U.S. Army Judiciary 

from 139 to 169 officers during 1971. Civilian personne

from 42 to 50 but subsequently was reduced to 47. 

Trials by military judge alone continued at a hi

throughout the year. About 95 percent of special cour

tried by judge alone, while the figure for general cou

about 84 percent. These trials resulted in a tremend

line officer hours during the year. 

Two regional judicial seminars were held for all m

in the continental United States during 1971, one in A

29-30, and the other in EI Paso, November 19-20. Ju

20 
During the last year, the Army justice system contin

operations under the current Manual jor Oowrts-1I1arti

was placed less on promoting additional legislative a

change than on functioning to maximum effect within 

system, with appropriate changes to Army regulations an

Great attention was devoted to the problem of delay in t

of courts-martial. A concept was developed calling for 

ment of area legal centers, each serving an entire majo

or large geographical area. The judge advocates at eac

directly supervise the processing of all legal actions wi

jurisdiction. This close supervision by professionals of 

commanders, legal clerks and other nonlawyers with lega

expected to speed processing by reducing delays and the n

cases to subordinate offices for correction. The concept ha

mented on an experimental basis in one division in Germ

be implemented on a similar basis at an installation in th

United States. 

The Army general military justice regulation was am

thorize military judges to issue warrants for search and 

authority extends to military persons and property, and 

of military persons when located in a place under milita

abroad. This authority supplements the power of comman

searches. It is hoped that the new procedure will lead 

. better able to withstand judicial scrutiny because authoriz

and experienced independent magistrates and also will b

the right to privacy of service members. 

An experimental program has been instituted in Eur

primarily to reduce unnecessary pretrial confinement. 

judge advocate is designated "military magistrate" for 

He visits the confinement facility daily and reviews the 

pretrial confinee. Between the 7th and 25th days of co

has the authority to order release, overriding the com

directed confinement. This procedure already has infl
necessary for the future. Study of the interrelationship 

antagonism and the military justice system is continuin

date indicate that there is no racial influence on the 

of military justice at the court-martial level. The ame

Army general military justice regulation to require th

be advised of his right to consult a lawyer before dec

to accept nonjudicial punishment will, it is expected, d

to improve confidence in Article 15 proceedings. Anoth

tory requirement, that certain Article 15 punishments b

played, should reduce unfounded rumor about discrepan

ment based on race or other improper considerations. 

Particular attention has been given to all aspects of t

punishment process. This is the area of military justi

more soldiers have contact than any other. Also, the r

supervision by lawyers leaves open the danger of unskil

and processing of punishments, delay and abuse. Actin

that the simpler the procedures, the greater the likelih

will be followed correctly, we are condensing the three fo

used for imposition and appeal of Article 15 punishmen

one-paper form that employs simple, economical languag

'While much has been, and can be, accomplished intern

for legislation of certain kinds is pressing. 'Ve need 

permit the execution of a sentence to confinement at th

tence is approved by the convening authority. The curr

between prisoners whose sentences have been executed an

sentences have not been executed is one of the greate

efficient operation of correctional facilities and reh

prisoners. The two classes of prisoners must be segrega

this entails extreme expense and uneconomic use of scar

manpower. Also, prisoners whose sentences have not yet 

cannot participate with other prisoners in rehabilitatio

Legislation is needed to relieve the convening author

gation to make a post-trial review of the findings of a 

22 
g pp

is the average court-martial panel. The great majority of c

ent are tried in full by the military judge. Experience ha

their sentences generally are appropriate and fair, and r

such by defendants and commands alike. 

PERSONNEL 

The strength of the Judge Advocate General's Corps av

1,740 commissioned attorneys, compared with the aver

during the preceding year. The program of curtailing the 

of non-JAGC attorneys to perfonn duty as trail and def

in special courts-martial was continued. Non-JAGC at

are necessary in areas as Vietnam and Europe where co

widespread geographically and transportation difficulti

provision of JAGCattorneys in all cases impossible. 

Retention of experienced officers remains the most seri

facing the Corps. The discrepancy between actual and 

field grade officer strength increased from 43 percent at t

of the year to 54 percent at the end. The declining inter

.JAGC commissions noted in 1970 became more marked i

enced, apparently, by announced plans to eliminate cons

the ROTC Active Duty for Training program that perm

to go on active duty with their basic branch for as little 

Applications for JAGC commissions decreased in 1971 b

from 610 to 314. 

To attract new lawyers and retain experienced officer

awarding professional pay to judge advocates again was i

both Houses of the Congress. H.n. 4606, introduced by 

received the unanimous approval of the House of Repre

19 July. Senate committee hearings haye not been hel

As another means of making Army service more attrac

yers, and in order to increase the efficiency of the admi

military justice, plans were developed for training legal 
During calendar year 1!J71, The Judge Advocate Ge

U.S. Army, provided resident instruction for 1,023 

courses. 

Four cycles of the Basic Course were cOllducted du

59th Basic Class of 61 students was graduated in March 

Basic Class of 51 students, including two Vietnamese of

officers, one Iranian officer, and one United Kingdo

graduated in May 1971. The GIst Basic Class of 72 stud

uated in October 1971. The 62d Basic Class of 94: stud

one Korean officer, two Thai officers, and one Vietnam

graduated in December 1971. This represents a con

of two classes over the normal two cycles of the Basic C

The increase was necessary to meet continued increased c

ments of the Military Justice Act of 1968. 

Phase I of the Basic Course was expanded from 2

effective 1 July 1971. This training preceeds the 8-we

in military law at The Judge Advocate General's Sc

vides an introduction to Army life and activities. ·With 

of the program, Phase I was transferred from the U.S

termaster School, Fort Lee, Va., to the U.S. Army M

School, Fort Gordon, Ga. The expanded course provid

prehensive general military orientation with empha

marshal and criminal investigation activities. The m

close involvement in these areas makes such an emp1

The 19th Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Course 

from The Judge Advocate General's School in May 197

38 students, including one officer from Ethopia, one of

one officer from Vietnam, four officers of the U.S. Mar

two officers of the U.S. Navy. 

The 20th Advanced Course began in August 1971. A

bers were one officer from Iran, one officer from Indon

from Venezuela, two officers of the U.S. Marine Corps

oHhe U.S. Navy. 

24 
a legal clerk's continuing education course and prese

cycle in September 1971. 

Blocks of instruction on the Manual and the Code w

for the noncommissioned officer education system, unde

of U.S. Continental Army Command, and distributed 

service schools. More extensive blocks of instruction w

for student officers in Army service schools. Additionally, 

of Military Justice instruction were written for U.S. A

School courses. In order to keep military law instruc

Army service schools up to date, a Military Legal Subjec

Conference was held at the School in February 1971. 

A substantial portion of the School's contribution to t

tation of the Military Justice Act of 1968 was the wr

regulations and pamphlets and the revision of old pu

military justice. Publications which were revised du

reflect the act's changes include "School Text on Evidence

Corroboration, and Self-Incrimination," "School Text 

Assistance to Civil Authorities," and "Legal Clerk's Han

publications include "School Text on the Law of A'VOL

ing Handbook," "Legal Guide for Commanders," "Lesson

Law," "Desk Book for Special Court-Martial Convening 

"Senior Officers Legal Orientation-Civil and Crimina

"Military Law for ROTC." Complete revision of the E

Procurement Law texts and the "Staff Judge Advocate H

in progress. 

Several of the publications mentioned are intended f

convening authorities, unit commanders, and other non

flllctions of a legal nature. Officers in the grade of lieut

and above also are eligible to attend the Senior Officers L

tion Course, the first two cycles of which have been pres

the School and one at Fort Sill, Okla. Improved trai

Iawyers is a prime means of improving the administratio

justice. 
and seizure by Capt. David McNeill, Jr., JAGC. 

Twenty issues of the .Judge Advocate Legal Service w

during 1971 to insure rapid dissemination of recent m

developments to judge advocates in the field. This pamp

digests of all U.S. Court of :Military Appeals opinions, 

Army Court of Military Review opinions, grants and ce

review by the Court of Military Appeals, and actions o

Advocate General under Al'tJicle 69, UGMJ. 

In August 19'11, a new publication, "The Army Lawy

lished for the first time. This publication is a monthly "

journal that provides timely information of a practi

practicing Army lawyers. It makes claims, personnel

ance, procurement, judicial, and litigation information 

the first time in a single comprehensive publication. M

opinions, selected civilian court decisions, and other misce

previously found in the Judge Adyocate Legal Service 

tained in the Army Lawyer. 

To further assist in the continued implementation o

illanual, the school prepared and distributed to judge adv

the world a Alanual for Oourts-M artial Annotation co

tions to Court of Military Appeals and Army Cour

Review cases, Federal decisions, Army regulations, 

Department of the Army pamphlets. This Annotation, 

April 1971, is expected to become a regular service of t

providing a continued updating of interpretations of th

judicial and administrative agencies. 

The annual .Judge Advocate General's Conference 

Charlottesville during the period October 3-'1,19'11. One 

ten selected conferees attended. Principal speakers were t

Robert F. Froehlke, Secretary of the Army, Mr. DoH D

ber of the National Security Council Staff, Brig. Ge

Gard, Jr., Director of Discipline Rnd Drug Policy, D

26 
j

The Judge Advocate G

. United Sta
mittee Report reach the Armed Services Committees 

shortly after the convening of each new session, this repo

embracing calendar year 1971, contains, unless otherwi

statistical information covering fiscal year 1971. 

OOURT-lIfARTIAL lVORKLOAD. a. There has bee

in the total court-martial workload, as reflected by Exhi

report. 

b. During fiscal year 1971, the Navy Court of Mili

received for review 752 general courts-martial and 2

courts-martial (total 3,459) as compared with 1,073 ge

martial and 2,991 special courts-martial (total 4,064) 

year 1970. Of the 3,459 cases received by the Navy Cour

Review during fiscal year 1971, 2,050 accused requested 

percent). 

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION 

TARY JUSTIOE. Complying with the requirements of 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Judge Advoc

visited numerous commands within the United States, 

Far East, and Southeast Asia, and the Deputy Judge Ad

eral visited commands throughout the United States. 

the Assistant Judge Advocate General (Military Law) 

mands within the United States in the supervision of the 

tion of military justice. 

LAlV OENTER PROGRAM. The law center progr

legal resources and facilities are centrally located in s

graphic areas from which surrounding commands may 

legal services when and where needed, has been in existence 

mately 21;2 years. The law center concept has demonstra

by accommodating without undue difficulty the increas

resulting from the implementation of the Military Ju

1968. During calendar year 1971, the number of law cent

out the world was decreased from 29 to 28 reflecting the c

law center in Sasebo, Japan. 

28 
ascertaining: (1) the specific advantages that may be d

a unified judiciary of general and special court-martial 

(2) the administrative problems that may arise during th

ment and operation of such a unified judiciary. 

b. Military judges of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Ju

tivity attended a variety of professional meetings and semi

the calendar year as follows: 

Function: Num

judg

1971 Judicial Seminar, Richards-Gebaur AFB, Mo., 12 G

May 13-15, 1971. 

American Bar Association, Annual Meeting, New York, 1GC

N.Y., July 4-7, 1971. 

National College of State Trial Judges, Reno, Nev., 1 G

July 26-Aug. 20, 1971. 

1971 Navy JAG Conference, Washington, D.C., Oct. 4-8, 6GC

1971. 

Army Regional Judicial Conference, Atlanta, Ga., 2 G

Oct. 29-30, 1971. 

Army Regional Judicial Conference, Fort Bliss, EI Paso, 3 G

Tex., Nov. 19-20, 1~71. 2 S

The participation of military judges in these meetings a

has proved to be an invaluable aid in maintaining the 

their professional knowledge and source of incentive for 

improvement. 

ARTIOLE 69, UOllIJ, PETITIONS. This year, as las

been an increase in the number of petitions for relief subm

ant to Article 69, Uniform Code of Military Justice, a prov

permits the Judge Advocate General to act in certain cas

been finally reviewed under Article 76. In calendar year 1

tions for relief were received by the Judge Advocate 

opposed to only 81 petitions received in calendar year 19

87 petitions, action has been completed in 82 during the ca
provides an officer lawyer course which is designed 

appointment lawyers of the Navy. During calendar 

School provided instruction in various courses to a 

officers and enlisted personnel of all the Armed Forces. 

b. Six nonlawyer officer classes graduated at the Ju

Newport and one class at Camp Pendleton, Calif. T

classes consisted of 393 officers of the Navy, Marine Co

Guard. In addition thereto, 235 lawyers of the Navy and 

completed the officer lawyer courses offered by the Schoo

c. Eleven hundred fifty-five officers completed the 

short courses offered at Newport, R.I.; Quantico, Va.; 

N.C.; El Toro, Calif.; and the Naval'War College, New

hundred 'and thirty officers completed the Ueserve semin

and 145 officers of the Navy were given special instruct

justice by officers of the Naval Justice School staff as p

at the Navy Destroyer School. 

d. Three hundred seventy-eight enlisted members 

Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard h

from the 5-week legal clerk and court reporting courses. 

STAFF JUDGE ADVOOATE'S OONFERENOE

ence was held in Washington, D.C., of staff judge adv

major Navy and Marine Corps commands. The confere

held in October, heard addresses by the Under Secretar

the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the 

the Judge Advocate General, the Director, Judge Advo

Headquarters, ~Iarine Corps, and the Judge Advocate 

Fleet. In addition, panel discussions concerning "Wh

Do To Improve Administration of Justice"and "Staf

cates and Defense Counsel-What They Can Do To 

Better" and a special program for military judges w

judge advocate attendees were also provided with infor

ing drug abuse in the military, and participated in a 

answer session on military justice. 

30 
, g

such personnel would be able to relieve judge advocate

burdensome administrative and clerical duties that did n

the direct attention of a lawyer, thereby" permitting the ju

cate to devote full time to matters that demand his uniq

sional knowledge and skills. This proposal, after a year o

has finally been approved by the Secretary of the Navy

of this new enlisted rating will be known as "I~egalmen" 

expected that the first class of Legalmen will commence the

at the U.S. Naval Justice School, Newport, R.I., sometime 

end of 1972. 

JOSEPH B. :McDEVITT, 

Rear Admiral, USN, 

The Judge Advocate Gen

United State
Special courts-martial: 

Received for review under Article 66_____________________ 

Received for review under Article 65c____________________ 

Reviewed in the field __________________________________ 

Total ______________________________________________ 

Summary courts-martial: 

Received for review under article 65c_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Reviewed in the field __________________________________ 

Total______________________________________________ 

Total all courts-martiaL _____________________________ 

Navy Court of Military Review actions: 

On hand for review end last fiscal year__________________ _ 

Received for review during fiscal year___________________ _ 

Total on hand______________________________________ _ 

Reviewed during fiscal year____________________________ _ 

Pending review end current fiscal year__________________ _ 

Total_____________________________________________ _ 

Findings modified or set aside by Navy: 

Court of Military Review during fiscal year______________ _ 

Requests for appellate counseL_____________________________ _ 

U.S. 	Court of Military Appeals actions: 

Petitions forwarded to USCMA ________________________ _ 

Cases certified to USCMA by JAG_____________________ _ 

Total cases docketed with USCMA___________________ _ 

Petitions granted by USCMA __________________________ 

Petitions denied by USCMA___________________________ _ 

Total petitions acted upon by USCMA _______________ 

32 
tember 1, 1971, vice Brig. Gen. Morton J. Gold, who w

to succeed General Vague. Generals Cheney and Gold ma

to legal offices in the United States and overseas, as re

Uniform Code of Mi1l:tary Justice, Article 6(a). They 

and participated in various bar association meetings, a

numerous civic, professional and military organization

Advocate General hosted a world-wide major command 

court-martial convening authority Staff Judge Advoc

ence at Andrews AFB, Md., in October 1971. On Jun

pilot project for the Air Force Judiciary Trial Divi

began its test period. This project, which was discussed 

ary 1, 1970-December 31, 1970 report, is one in which s

ad vocates were assigned as full time trial and defense 

special court-martial military judges within geograph

within the 2d Circuit of the eastern U.S. Judiciary Regio

out of offices at Maxwell AFB, Ala., Keesler AFB, M

AFB, Fla., and Shaw AFB, S.C. All report directly t

Advocate General rather than field commanders. The te

concluded on November 30,1971, and is currently undergo

lation with a view toward determining its feasibility fo

adoption. 

2. a. The number of records of trial received in the 

Judge AdvOCThte General, for review pursuant to Articl

examination pursuant 1(:0 Articie 69, during fiscal year 1

in the following table: 

Total numuer records received________________________________

For review under Article 66__________________________________

General court-martial records_________________________________

Special court-martial records__________________________________

Examined under Article 69___________________________________
0. During the fiscal year 75.5 percent of the accus

were referred for review under Article 66, requested 

by Appellate Defense Counsel before the Court of M

d. The following table shows the number of cases fo

U.S. Court of Military Appeals pursuant to the three 

Alticle 67 (b) ; and the num.ber of petitions granted du

Cases revie~ed and dispatched by Court of Revie~___________

Number of cases for~arded to USC:\IA______________________

Cases petitioned ______________________ ~_____________________

Cases certified______________________________________________

Percent total for~arded of total cases revie~ed______________

Petitions granted___________________________________________

Percent grants of total petitioned___________________________

Percent petitions granted of total cases revie~ed by Court of R

e. During the fiscal year, the following number o

were convened in the Air Force: 

General courts-martiaL_____._______________________________

Special courts-martiaL_____________________________________

Summary courts-martiaL__________________________________

Total _______________________________________________

34 
__________________________________________ _ 

__________________________________________ _ 3,6

Quarters arrest/correctional custody: Officers__________________________________________ _ 

Airmen __________________________________________ _ 2, 7

Extra duties (over 14 days): Airmen __________________________________________ _ 1,7

Reduction in grade: Airmen __________________________________________ _ 16,8

Forfeiture Officersof pay: 

AUmen__________________________________________ _ 15,4

Detention of pay: Officers __________________________________________ _ 

Airmen __________________________________________ _ 

Written reprimand: Officer~ ____________________________ • _____________ _ 

Airmen__________________________________________ _ 4

Mitigating actions: 

Appeals taken_______________________ - - - --_ --- - - --_ 1,5

Officer3 __________________________________________ _ 

Aumen__________________________________________ _ 1,5

AppeaBdenied___________________________________ _ 1,3

Officers __________________________________________ _ 

Aumen __________________________________________ _ 

1,2

Suspension of punishment____________ - _____ - _ - _ - __ _ 11,5

Officers__________________________________________ _ 

Aumen _________________________ - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - -- 11,5

Other action ____________________ --- - --- ---- - - - - --_ 2,0

Officers __________________________________________ _ 

AUmen __________________________________________ _ 

2, 

I Of total cases (26,971). I Of appeals taken (1,652). 
ing in volume XIII were a number of articles on 

military justice. The 'Vinter issue contained "The R

Counsel in Sentencing Procedures," "The Boundaries 

less Search," and "Corroboration of Confessions: T

The Spring issue carried the article "The Air Force 

gram for the 1970s," and in the Summer issue a

'Vithout Punishment-Ex-Servicemen, Civilian Em

pendents," "Criminal Responsibility: The New F

Military Law," and "United States v. Rat:hbun: A 14 

The article, "Crime 'Vithout Punishment," was wri

Robinson O. Everett, professor of Law at Duke 

Lt. Laurent R. Hourcle, a student of law of Professo

6. During calendar year 1971 the Judge Advocate G

ment provided continuing legal and general educati

to 334 of its personnel. The basic course for new and r

judge advocates was the Judge Advocate Staff Off

at the Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, A

course was conducted five times during 1971 and 176 

completed it. During the year 13 judge advocates wer

civilian universities to obtain an LL.M degree. Seve

a course of study in Procurement Law, three in Int

two in Labor Law and one in Tax Law. Because of 

increasing importance of the procurement law field, a

future procurement lawyers is held at each of the fi

Areas (AMA). Five selected judge advocates enterin

the first time are assigned to the AMA Procurement 

before being regularly assigned to judge advocate du

of the AMA Staff Judge Advocate. This program i

the regular and continuing 2 week Procurement Law 

'Vright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Seventy j

completed this latter course during 1971. Air Force 

officers also attend the Logistics Officer course conduct

JAG School at Charlottesville, Va. In 1971, eight 

36 
g 

Armed Forces Staff College. 1Ve also have a quota of o

odd year to attend the Industrial College of the Armed Fo

officer per even year to attend the National ·War Colleg

la wyers attend the Squadron Officers School, but thei

is on a local command basis and not by the Judge Advoc

However, attendance at this course is encouraged. A cou

appointed staff judge advocates was established in 1971 a

in April 1972. It will be conducted twice each year wi

enrolled per session. Additionally, a 2 week refresher c

each year for Reserve and Air National Guard judge a

1971, 36 attended a single session of this course, howeve

next year, two sessions will be conducted each year . .A 13 w

Medicine course is conducted, as required, at Malcolm Gr

Andrews Air Force Base, :Md. Those attending this course 

as Forensic Medicine Consultants to area hospital comm

first class of 10 lawyers was held in 1970. The next class 

dents will begin in March 1972. In 1971, selected Air Fo

Officers were participating in the excess leave program to 

legal education. It is anticipated that upon completion o

these students will enter active duty as judge advocate

during the summer vacation period, they may perform a

an Air Force legal office as "legal interns." In addition 

signed to Base Legal Offices, seven were assigned to 

divisions of the Office of The Judge Advocate General a

A very significant step toward the improvement of ad

in our legal offices was the establishment during the year

school for legal technicians at Keesler Air Force Base, M

class of this specialized course for enlisted members enter

field will begin in January 1972. In addition to these pr

Force Judge Advocates and Legal Technicians attended 

short courses pertaining to law conducted by civilian 

universities and the armed forces. 
Reserve officers (of this number 377 entered active 

Reserve status and have a 4-year active duty servic

and 249 were Reserve officers with established dates of 

Regular officer strength decreased by 24 and the total 

increased by 59 between June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1

9. At the close of the period of this report, there we

exercising general court-martial jurisdiction . 

•TAMES S. CHENEY, 

. Major General, USAF

The Judge Advocate 

United Sta

38 
Department of Transportation submitted pursnant to A

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unless otherw

figures given are for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 19

ing June 30, 1971. 

The table below shows the number of court-martial reco

and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during the fiscal 

4 preceding years. 

1971 1970 1969 

General courts-martiaL ____________________ 

Special courts-martiaL _____________________ 2 

129 

2 

76 

2 

92 

Summary courts-martiaL ___________________ 287 174 207 

Total______________________________ 418 252 301 

Both special and summary courts-martial showed a mar

during the year. Nearly all of the increase can be attri

upsurge in the offenses of absence without authority, des

huana or controlled drug use, possession, and sale. 

In spite of the increase, all special courts-martial had 

trial and defense ~ounsel. A military judge was assigned i

of the trials. The relatively small number of career mili

has prevented the creation of a separate source of militar

special courts-martial. The normal practice is to assign 

lawyers 'as military judges on a rotating basis with contro

cised from Headquarters. On occasion, it has been necessa

the detail of military judges from the other Armed F

judges were used in 10 of the 129 trials. In 67 'Of the cases

military judge with members. In the remaining 61 cases

ejected to be tried by military judge alone. 
Of the 117 cases with approved sentences, 68 

affirmed on review without modification. Forty-nine 

mitigated in some form. In 71 cases, there were guilty 

the charges. Twenty of these involved pretrial agreeme

The following table shows the distribution of the 29

of offenses tried in the 129 special courts-martial: 

AWOT, or dN'ertion________________________________________

Marihuana offenses________________________________________

~Iissing ship nloveIDent __________________________ --_________

Willful disobedience or disrespecL__________________________

Assault _____________ , ______________________________________ 

Violation of order or regulation______________________.,._____

False representation or official statemenL____________________

Larceny or wrongful appropriation _________________________

Breaking restriction________________________________________

Offenses against Coast Guard property______________________

Offenses involving controlled drugs__________________________

Drunk or disorderly ______________________________________ --

Provoking words or threats_________________________________

~eglect of duty______________________________________-_____

Sleeping on post___________________________________________

Other offenses_____________________________________________

The Coast Guard Court of :Military Review has seven 

with it during the fiscal year. One of these was a peti

habeas corpus. In its opinion dismissing the writ, the C

the view that Courts of Military Review established 

form Code of :Military Justice are not authorized to 

or to grant emergency relief since they are not courts 

the contemplation of the All 'Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 165

Bendel' ct al., 43 CMR 899. This view of the Cour

differed from that taken by the Army Court of Mili

United States v. Draughon, 42 CMR 447 (1970). In it

the Coast Guard Court affirmed without modification t

40 
plied with the requirements of the Code as amended by t

was certified to the Court of Military Appeals. The decisio

the question negatively and declared that article 26(c), a

required the Coast Guard to assign a military judge to t

duty of judging to try general courts-martial. The Court 

that the military judge so assigned could be used to try spe

martial if the number of general courts-martial did no

fully employed. 

The accused in two other Coast Guard cases submitted p

review by the Court of Military Appeals. In both cases

denied review. 

As a result of the Moorehead case, a general court-mart

judge has been assigned directly under the Chief Counsel o

Guard for detail as such when required. In order to insu

primary duty is that of military judge, he has also been 

the military judge in a number of special courts-martial. 

load warrants, it is planned to assign another military ju

primary duty. 

Again during 1971, Rear Adm. 'Villiam L. Morrison

Counsel of the Coast Guard, made inspection visits to sev

legal offices. In addition, members of his staff participated i

formal inspections, under the program of the Inspector Gen

legal office in two additional districts and the Coast Guard 

Fifteen Coast Guard officers commissioned for active duty 

were graduated during the year from the basic course at 

Advocate General's School, U.S. Army, Charlottesville, V

During the period May 19-21, 1971, a second conference 

and base legal officers was held at Coast Guard Headqu

conferees were addressed by the General Counsel, the Chi

the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and Judge Tim 

the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, as well 
U.I. IOYEIHIMEHT ,R

42