## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before HAIGHT, PENLAND, and WOLFE Appellate Military Judges

HEARST NEWSPAPERS, LLC et al., Petitioner & Sergeant ROBERT B. BERGDAHL, Real Party in Interest

v. General ROBERT B. ABRAMS, Commander, Respondent & Lieutenant Colonel P ETER Q. BURKE, Comm ander, Respondent & Lieutenant Colonel MARK A. VISGER, Prelimin ary Hearing Officer, Respondent & UNITED STATES

, Respondent

ARMY MISC 20150652

For Petitioner: Jenni fer D. Bishop; Diego Ibarguen (on brief).

For Real Party in Interest: Lieutenant Colone l Jonathan F. Potter, JA; Captain Alfredo N. Foster, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Franklin D. Rosenblatt; Euge ne R. Fidell (on brief).

For Respondent: Pursuant to A.C.C.A. Rule 20(e ), no response filed.

14 October 2015

----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND ACTION ON PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Per Curiam:

Petitioner is ch arged with desertion and misb ehavior before the enemy, in violation of Articles 85 and 99 , Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 885 and 899 [hereinafter UCMJ]. Pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ, a preliminary hearing was conducted in petitioner’s ca se on 17-18 September 2015.

On 2 October 2015, Hearst Newspapers, LLC et al. pe titioned this court for extraordinary reli ef in the nature of a writ of mandamus. On 5 October 2015, Sergeant Robert B. Bergdahl filed a motion for leave to intervene as a real-party-in interest, which was granted by this court on 13 October 2015.BERGDAHL – ARMY MISC 20150652

2 Petitioner presents the following tw o issues:

A. WHERE UNCLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE DURING A PUBLIC ARTICLE 32 [UCMJ] HEARING, MAY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY OR OTHER PRESIDING OFFICER DENY PUBLIC ACCESS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC, ON-THE-RECORD, FINDINGS THAT SUCH DENIAL—EFFECTIVELY SEALING THE DOCUMENTS—IS NECESSARY TO FURTHER A COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST THAT OVERRIDES THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND IS NARROWLY TAILORED TO FURTHER THAT INTEREST.

B. IS THE GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL CONVENING AUTHORITY, SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL CONVENING AUTHORITY, A ND/OR ARTICLE 32 [UCMJ] PRELIMINARY HEARING OFFICER REQUIRED TO MAKE TRANSCRIPTS OF A PUBLIC ARTICLE 32 HEARING AVAILA BLE TO THE PUBLIC IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE HEARING?

Petitioner asks this court to answer both questions in the affirm ative and to issue a writ of mandamu s directing the public release of documents.

The jurisdiction of this court to issue process under the All Writs Act is limited to issues havi ng “the potential to di rectly affect the find ings and sentence.” LRM v. Kastenberg , 72 M.J. 364, 368 (2013); 28 U.S. C. § 1651. This court does not have jurisdiction to oversee the administ ration of military ju stice generally. Clinton v. Goldsmith , 526 U.S. 529, 534 (19 99). Petitioner has not demonstr ated that the release of documents to the public, prior to any decision on whether this case should be referred to trial, has the potential to di rectly affect the findi ngs and sentence. As this court lacks the jurisdic tion to consider the matter, the petition is DISMISSED.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: