Court Opinion

ID: 9836760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:58.642942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.780138
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in result):
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that “unlawful command influence was not present in this case.” 54 MJ at 34. In my view, the DuBay hearing found only that any unlawful influence in this case did not prejudice appellant because it was ineffective, ie., “Not the product of unlawful command influence.” (DuBay hearing Findings of Fact and Conclusions). See United States v. Biagase, 50 MJ 143, 151 (1999). I will not condone the unauthorized leaking of a government memorandum to the press by anonymous sources, particularly where it might adversely affect the court-martial approval process. See United States v. Levite, 25 MJ 334, 338 (CMA 1987); United States v. Karlson, 16 MJ 469, 474 (CMA 1983) (stating that “it is well established that unlawful command influence may assume many forms, may be difficult to uncover, and affects court members in unsuspecting ways”).