Court Opinion

ID: 9836947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:38.038546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.453671
License: Public Domain

CRAWFORD, Judge
(concurring in the result):
Military accused enjoy the right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and by statute — Article 10, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 810. They also enjoy a right to a speedy trial as set forth in RCM 707, which is simple for the bench and bar to follow: When arraignment falls within the 120-day period provided by RCM 707, there is no speedy-trial violation.
As the majority states, “We are not at liberty, and do not desire, to unilaterally modify clearly written Presidential rules that do not conflict with the Congressionally passed Code or the Constitution.” 51 MJ at 465. However, this language points out the opinion’s self-contradictory nature which suggests the Court’s willingness to craft exceptions to this “clearly written” rule on a case-by-case basis. While the Government was not ready to proceed in the ease at the time of arraignment, as the court below indicated, the Government was diligent in processing the case, unpub. op. at 2, and that court found “no evidence of intentional or negligent actions by the Government which compel us to act.” Id. at 3. I disassociate myself from the dicta in this case setting forth new language which contradicts RCM 707 as presently drafted. My view does not preclude the President from drafting a “sham” rule. However, at this date, he has not.
As to the hypothetical set forth by the majority, that is, arraignment when the Government never intends to go forward on the charges, military defendants would be protected from such an action by the sources of rights set forth above.