Opinion ID: 3010248
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hirshberg Case

Text: Our analysis of modern court-martial jurisdiction originates with United States ex rel. Hirshberg v. Cooke, 336 U.S. 210 (1949). Hirshberg, a naval enlisted man, while serving a second term of enlistment, was served with charges directing his trial by court-martial. The charges stemmed from misconduct that occurred during his prior term of enlistment. The government alleged court-martial jurisdiction under Article 8 (Second) of the Articles for the Government of the Navy, which provided that such punishment as a court-martial may adjudge may be inflicted on any person in the Navy . . . guilty of maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders. The government contended that this language authorized the courtmartial for Hirshberg's conduct during a prior enlistment because in the courts of the United States or of a State, a Territory, or the District of Columbia, may be relieved from amenability to trial by court-martial by reason of the termination of that status. 10 U.S.C. § 803(a) (1988), amended by 10 U.S.C. § 803(a) (1992). 9 Hirshberg was in the Navy when the offense was committed and when he was tried. Id. at 212-13. The government conceded that had Hirshberg not reenlisted he would not have been subject to court-martial because of his break in service. However, the Court pointed out that making such concession while urging such a literal construction of article 8 (Second) expose[d] the whimsical and uncertain nature of the distinctions that would mark the boundaries of court-martial powers. Id. at 213. Additionally, the Court reasoned that [j]urisdiction to punish rarely, if ever, rests upon such illogical and fortuitous contingencies. Id. at 214. Thus, out of Hirshberg came the doctrine that military jurisdiction over an individual for offenses committed during a prior period of enlistment or obligated service lapses after the discharge for that period. Today, [d]espite the enactment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and various amendments to the Code, Hirshberg remains binding precedent. United States v. Cortte, 36 M.J. 767, 769 (N.M.C.M.R. 1992)(citing United States v. Clardy, 13 M.J. 308 (C.M.A. 1982)). It is the Hirshberg doctrine that applies throughout this appeal.