Court Opinion

ID: 9836724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:53.954736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.667443
License: Public Domain

CRAWFORD, Chief Judge
(dissenting):
The majority continues to swim in a sea of paternalism. It overlooks the fact that we are bound by the President’s rules, unless they are unconstitutional. United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998). At oral argument, the Government stated the accused deserved no credit and the decision below should be reversed. I agree.
The Manual expressly provides that the failure to make a motion for appropriate relief before the court-martial is adjourned constitutes a waiver absent good cause shown for not making the motion. RCM 905(e), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1998 ed.); see also RCM 907(b)(2)(D)(iv). As we said in United States v. Huffman, 40 MJ 225, 229 (CMA 1994):
The purpose of these so-called “raise-or-waive” Manual Rules are to eliminate the expense to the parties and the public of rehearing an issue that could have been dealt with by a timely objection or motion at trial.
Recently, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the requirement for an affirmative waiver under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 120 S.Ct. 659, 666, 145 L.Ed.2d 560 (2000). The Court noted:
For certain fundamental rights, the defendant must personally make an informed waiver ____ (right to counsel) ... (right to plead not guilty). For other rights, however, waiver may be effected by action of counsel. “Although there are basic rights that the attorney cannot waive without the fully informed and publicly acknowledged consent of the client, the lawyer has — and must have — full authority to manage the conduct of the trial.” ... As to many decisions pertaining to the conduct of the trial, the defendant is “deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have ‘notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.’ ” ... Thus, decisions by counsel are generally given effect as to what arguments to pursue, ... and what agreements to conclude regarding the admission of evidence.... Absent a demonstration of ineffectiveness, counsel’s word on such matters is the last.
Id. at 664 (citations omitted).
Except for Huffman, it would seem that the failure to make the motion in this case is the “last word” absent a claim of ineffectiveness. Id.
Huffman is unworkable, and the impact on the system can now be seen. Since the Huffman decision, we have had numerous cases where the issue has not been raised before the court-martial is adjourned. United States v. Yunk, 53 MJ 145 (2000); United States v. Smith, 53 MJ 168 (2000); United States v. Starr, 53 MJ 380 (2000); United States v. Avila, 53 MJ 99 (2000); United States v. Southwick, 53 MJ 412 (2000); cf. United States v. Fricke, 53 MJ 149 (2000). The astute lawyer realizes that his or her client may be entitled to more relief after appellate review because witnesses move and facts are forgotten. However, this approach does not serve their clients nor the military justice system.
The military justice system provides for an extensive review of pretrial restraint. Foremost, the military accused is entitled “to retain civilian counsel at no expense to the United States, and the right to request assignment of military counsel” “within 72 hours of’ confinement. RCM 305(e) and (f). Trial defense counsel are expected to be active advocates for their clients in pretrial confinement determinations and throughout the duration of pretrial confinement. Additionally, there are a number of safeguards in place: the 48-hour probable cause review, United States v. Rexroat, 38 MJ 292 (CMA 1993); the 72-hour commander’s review, RCM 305(h)(2); the 7-day neutral and detached officer’s review, RCM 305(i)(1) & (2); and the military judge’s review, RCM 305(j).
I can support neither circumvention of these safeguards nor the avoidance of the waiver rules. Therefore, I dissent.