Court Opinion

ID: 8649336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 20:23:28.952318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:27.283731
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Chief Judge
(concurring):
I concur with the scholarly and excellent opinion of Senior Judge Everett concerning the constitutionality of RCM 1004, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984. However, I reserve judgment on the effect of Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 866, on this case since such a holding is not required to answer the specified issues decided today.
It is my personal view, however, that, in peacetime, a servicemember in a capital case should be tried by a 12-member court-martial. The value of a soldier’s life is surely equal to the value of the life of his fellow citizens. Cf. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 103, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 1907, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970). Nevertheless, neither the Constitution itself, nor Congress in legislation, nor the President by regulation has mandated a 12-member panel in a military capital case. See generally Van Loan, The Jury, The Court-Martial, and The Constitution, 57 Cornell L. Rev. 363, 384 n.118 (1972). Moreover, it is the duty of this Court to apply the law of the land, not to legislate by judicial fiat, and therefore, it is beyond our power to mandate such a procedure. Finally, appellant himself, by use of his challenges, reduced in part the number of court members detailed to this case from 15 to 9. Moreover, he did not particularly object to trial by 9 members at this court-martial or request the detail of additional members. I could not find reversible error in these circumstances even if appellant was somehow entitled to a 12-member panel.