Document: 393 U.S. 348 89 S.Ct. 528 21 L.Ed.2d 537 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Richard G. AUGENBLICK. Petitioner, v. Kenneth N. JUHL. No. 45. Argued Nov. 21, 1968. Decided Jan. 14, 1969. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., New York City, for petitioner. Joseph H. Sharlitt, Washington, D.C., and Francis J. Steiner, Nashville, Tenn., respondents. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondents, who had been convicted by court -martial, brought these suits back pay. Augenblick, though charged with sodomy, was a lesser offense, an indecent act, Juhl selling overseas merchandise Air Force Exchange. Augenblick sentenced to dismissal from service; reduction in rank, partial forfeiture pay, confinement six months. Each exhausted remedies available him1 and, not having obtained relief, suit Court Claims recover pay,2 on ground that court-martial infringed his constitutional rights. The undertook review judgments courtsmartial defects rendered 377 F.2d 586, 180 Ct.Cl. 131; 383 1009, 181 210. case is here petition writs certiorari which we granted because importance question concerning jurisdiction courts-martial. 390 1038, 88 1635, 20 300. 2 Article 76 Uniform Code Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 876, provides military convictions shall be 'final conclusive' 'binding upon all * courts ** United States.' legislative history provision makes clear relief way habeas corpus3 implied exception finality clause (S.Rep. 486, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 32; H.R.Rep. 491, 35)—an respondent he discharged service, imprisoned, remedy apparently invoked during short period detention. 3 An additional remedy, now but clearly known at time convictions, Appeals. In States Bevilacqua, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 10, 11—12, 39 C.M.R. decided November 8, 1968, held it has 'to accord accused palpably denied rights any court-martial; deprived need go outside justice system find civilian Federal judiciary.'4 4 Prior enactment 76, entertained pay servicemen courts- martial. See, e.g., Keyes States, 109 336, 202, 27 L.Ed. 954; Runkle 122 543, 7 1141, 30 1167; Swaim 165 553, 17 448, 41 823; Brown, 206 240, 620, 51 1046. These decisions, argued, were based theory over back-pay where courts-martial lacked 'jurisdiction' traditional sense, viz., 'there si no law authorizing court-martial, or statutory conditions as constitution are observed.' supra, 340, S.Ct., 204. From this premise urged when, state federal corpus, concept broadened include deprivation trial tribunal defendant (Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 43 265, 67 543; Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 1461), scope collateral also broadened. That position rejected view adoption introduced new regime 1552 correct record order 'remove injustice,'5 see Ashe McNamara, Cir., 355 277, is, apart exclusive remedy.6 5 On issue there have variety views expressed See Burns Wilson, 346 137, 149, 152—153, 73 1045, 1052, 1053—1054, 97 1508. There likewise unresolved whether, if correct, District Courts might like respects exceeding $10,000 under Tucker Act, 28 1346(a)(2).7 After hearing argument studying cases do reach those questions. For conclude that, even assume, arguendo, attack judgment may made throguh alleging 'constitutional' defect decision, present their facts rise level. 6 gave paragraph 153(a) Manual Courts-Martial states 'cannot' base conviction 'upon uncorroborated testimony purported accomplice case, such self-contradictory, uncertain, improbable.' We stop evidence bears sets forth detail. F.2d, 1012—1017, Ct.Cl., 215—225. 8 prescribed President pursuant 36 Code, 836. It guidebook summarizes rules applied boards. Levy Resor, 135, 37 399. regarding rule evidence. Such customar ly involve Humphrey Smith, 336 695, 69 830, 93 986; Whelchel McDonald, 340 122, 71 146, 95 141. involved various paragraphs dealing defense insanity. did sanction only denial opportunity consider insanity 'goes jurisdiction'; added '(a)ny error committed evaluating tendered beyond civil courts.' U.S., 124, 148. 9 Rules designed interest fair trials. But unfairness result sure measure unconstitutionality. When look requirements procedural due process, use catalogued restrictions. Of course, knowing its perjured character linked (Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 55 79 791; Brady Maryland, 373 83, 83 1194, 215), would problem different dimensions. nothing kind here. Augenblick's claim concerns phase discovery He young airman, Hodges, apprehended late night parked car. police arrested them turned Armed Forces Police questioned separately naval station D.C. Hodges then taken Maryland swore five-page written statement. 11 after Hodges. During questioning both men, Agent James tape recording conversations. Mendelson either took some notes wrote up later. 12 started out denying anything happened car later maintained sodomy place, though, said, sodomy. received honorable discharge; induced change promise one given. indeed heavily impressed us kept months left good standing, spite reprehensible conduct, given discharge convicted. 13 moved production taken—or typed up—and made. As notes, officer, without examining camera otherwise, request. tapes, officer ordered they produced Government produce witnesses out-of-court could explain nonexistence. tapes produced; each agent contact called, except Norfolk. testified knew what it. Mendelson, whom once delivered, called; reading Mendelson's pretrial investigation, refused. 14 'notes' well bring into focus Jencks 3500. This enacted our decision 353 657, 77 1007, 1103, when witness testifies required 'any statement' relates testimony. 3500(b). term 'statement' defined subsection (e) as: 15 '(1) statement said signed otherwise adopted approved him; 16 '(2) stenographic, me hanical, electrical, other recording, transcription thereof, substantially verbatim recital oral recorded contemporaneously making statement.' considerable doubt fall within definition (e). inquiry 'rough pencil notes'; 'I jot down couple rough notes.' Both Board Review concluded 'substantially verbatim' producible Act. difficult tell precise nature 'notes', whether part Hodges' interview merely memorandum giving names, places, hours. Certainly covering entire interview; truncated version, pose reserved Palermo 360 343, 1217, 1287. 19 Since examination 'notes,' cannot say command Act disobeyed produced. Moreover, 353, 1225, administration must entrusted 'good sense experience' judges subject 'appropriately limited appellate came notes' abused discretion holding same true rulings tapes. covered Act; earnest effort locate them. Their existence detailed interrogation convened request defense. Four government agents facilities used, Navy's routine handling using recordings, fate containing again court-martial. shows found; ultimate remains mystery. properly ruled bore burden producing explaining why so. 22 devoid credible suppressed. Whether should recalled matter debate perhaps doubt. questions Indeed cast terms. 345, 362, 1229. They governing trials before tribunals; never extended principles criminal situations, type Sixth Amendment right. example, defendants compulsory process obtain 1229, 1287 (Brennan, J., concurring result). certain worthy candidate consideration 23 Claims, conscientious undo injustice, elevated level deemed infraction 'seriously impeded right trial' violation 'of Due Process Clause Constitution.' 606 607, 166. conducted i express mandates, constitutionally unfair takes place barriers safeguards so relaxed forgotten, Moore proceeding more spectacle (Rideau Louisiana, 723, 726, 1417, 1419, 663) orderal (Brown Mississippi, 297 278, 285, 56 461, 464, 80 682) than disciplined contest. 24 Reversed. reviewed Navy affirmed, member dissenting. Appeals January 11, 1963. Secretary declined 30, 871. dismissed February 5, 1964, Correction Records relief. His filed October 22, 1964. Juhl's Staff Judge Advocate. 12, 1965. Back-pay 1491 render against 'founded Constitution, Congress, regulation executive department, contract *.' Eastport Steamship Corp. 372 1002, 1008, 178 599, 606. Brenner, Judicial Money Judgment Fed.B.J. 179, 190—191 (1961). Habeas corpus conventional obtaining tribunals. Reid Covert, 354 1, 1222, 1148; 1508; 141; Gusik Schilder, 128, 146. noted, n. supra. sought Appeals; Co rt alleged '(n)o appeal possible Appeals,' allegation admitted answer. Section 1552(a) part: 'The procedures established him Defense, acting through boards civilians department considers necessary remove injustice.' 591—593, 140—143. discussion H.R.Rep.No.1604, 88th 2d 2.

Category: 1