Court Opinion

ID: 9374795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 22:01:15.550426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.106133
License: Public Domain

This opinion is subject to revision before publication.

     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
              FOR THE    ARMED FORCES
                    _______________

                  UNITED STATES
                      Appellee

                            v.

    Norbert A. KING II, Lieutenant Colonel
       United States Air Force, Appellant

                     No. 22-0008
                 Crim. App. No. 39583

Argued October 26, 2022—Decided February 23, 2023

Military Judges: J. Wesley Moore (arraignment and
     motions), Steven J. Grocki (motions), and
       Shaun S. Speranza (motions and trial)

For Appellant: Tami L. Mitchell, Esq. (argued);
Mark C. Bruegger, Esq. (on brief).

For Appellee: Major Brittany M. Speirs (argued);
Colonel Naomi P. Dennis, Lieutenant Colonel Mat-
thew J. Neil, and Mary Ellen Payne, Esq. (on brief);
Major Morgan R. Christie.

Chief Judge OHLSON delivered the opinion of the
Court, in which Judge SPARKS, Judge HARDY, and
Senior Judge EFFRON joined. Judge MAGGS filed a
separate opinion concurring in the judgment. Judge
HARDY filed a separate concurring opinion.
                 _______________
            United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                    Opinion of the Court

  Chief Judge OHLSON delivered the opinion of the
Court.
    Contrary to his pleas, a panel of officer members sitting
as a general court-martial convicted Appellant of one spec-
ification of sexual assault of his seventeen-year-old biolog-
ical daughter and one specification of committing an act of
sexual penetration on his blood relative, an offense not cap-
ital, in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 20:14-2(c)(3)(a) (West
2014), assimilated into federal law by 18 U.S.C. § 13 (2012),
in violation of Articles 120 and 134, Uniform Code of Mili-
tary Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 934 (2012). The ad-
judged and approved sentence included confinement for
three years and a dismissal. The United States Air Force
Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) set aside and dismissed
with prejudice the Article 134, UCMJ, charge and its spec-
ification, affirmed the remaining findings, and affirmed the
reassessed sentence of confinement for three years and a
dismissal. We granted review of the following issue:
      Was Appellant’s court-martial improperly consti-
      tuted because the convening authority excused a
      member after the court-martial was assembled
      without establishing good cause on the record for
      excusing him?
United States v. King, 82 M.J. 275, 275-76 (C.A.A.F. 2022)
(order granting review). We answer the granted issue in
the negative and affirm the judgment of the CCA.
                       I. Background
   This case underscores the need for everyone involved in
a court-martial to pay meticulous attention to the panel
member selection process.
   The original convening order applicable to Appellant’s
court-martial listed Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) PBL as a
primary panel member and Colonel (Col) DL as an alter-
nate panel member. At the time of the court-martial’s as-
sembly on April 16, 2018, there were fifteen members pre-
sent. These members included Lt Col PBL but not Col DL.
There is no accounting on the record for Col DL’s absence.

                              2
            United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                    Opinion of the Court

   To a large degree, Lt Col PBL is the focus of this appeal.
During group and individual voir dire he indicated that he
knew the accused and some of the witnesses, and that he
had previously served on a court-martial. Lt Col PBL also
revealed that he had been arrested and falsely accused of
rape by a classmate when he was fifteen years old. He ex-
plained that “the charges were unfounded and later dis-
missed and the accuser in the case was proved to be lying.”
The experience had been “[e]ye opening” for him, but the
justice system “worked out like it was supposed to.” Lt Col
PBL elaborated as follows:
      I believe absolutely you can be accused of a crime
      and I think that evidence will speak for itself. So
      throughout the process the truth came to light and
      that’s what really matters in the justice system.
      So that’s kind of what I realized in the system. So
      if you do the process and work it, it will work out
      like it’s supposed to more often than not.
Upon inquiry by the military judge, both parties specifi-
cally declined to challenge Lt Col PBL for cause. Indeed,
the military judge noted that the defense “affirmatively de-
sire[d] to have this court member on this particular panel.”
   After challenges for cause and the defense’s peremptory
challenge, Appellant’s court-martial was left with five
members. This included Lt Col PBL who, as the senior
member, served as the president of the panel. However,
due to a scheduling conflict with the defense expert con-
sultant, the military judge granted a defense motion for an
extended continuance of the trial. The military judge then
inquired whether the continuance would affect any of the
members’ ability to remain on the court-martial. Lt Col
PBL responded: “[J]ust to be aware, my change of com-
mand is slated for June but I am expected to PCS over to
[another organization on base], which will keep me in
place, but I will just be in a different organization at that
time.” Although the military judge explained that the
members could be released upon a showing of good cause,
he also stated: “You also remain panel members for this
case and are expected to be available on that particular

                              3
              United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                      Opinion of the Court

date. As indicated, you were selected and ordered by the
Convening Authority in this case, this is your primary
duty.” The military judge then noted: “We will enter a pe-
riod of extended adjournment. . . . [U]ntil 26 July.”
   Appellant’s trial resumed on July 24, 2018, with a new
military judge, a new senior trial counsel, and seven newly
detailed panel members. However, three members of the
original panel were absent from this court-martial session
even though they remained on Appellant’s court-martial
panel. As for two other members of the original panel, in-
cluding Lt Col PBL, an amendment to the convening order
placed into the record showed that they had been “relieved”
by the convening authority. 1
    Despite this status of the panel members, at the outset
of the court-martial the following exchange occurred be-
tween the military judge and the Government:
       MJ: And those members that are absent were re-
       lieved by the convening authority, correct?
       TC: Yes, Your Honor.
       ....
       STC: Sorry, Your Honor. The members that are
       absent were at a previous hearing. They are still
       on the panel they are just not present. The others
       were excused at an earlier session.
(Emphasis added.)
   As demonstrated above, the assertion by the senior trial
counsel that Lt Col PBL and another panel member had

   1  At an Article 39(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 839(a) (2012), ses-
sion held at the beginning of the court-martial proceedings on
July 24, 2018, trial counsel referenced Special Order A-14 and
noted that a copy had been “furnished to the military judge, [de-
fense] counsel, and the accused, and . . . at this point will be in-
serted in the record.” Special Order A-14 was signed by the staff
judge advocate on behalf of the convening authority and stated
in relevant part: “The following members are detailed to the gen-
eral court-martial convened by Special Order A-8, this head-
quarters dated 11 April 2018, vice [Lt Col PBL] and [Lt Col
KMW] relieved.”

                                 4
            United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                    Opinion of the Court

been excused at an earlier court-martial session was
wrong. However, the military judge did not correct the sen-
ior trial counsel even though the amendment to the con-
vening order which had been placed into the record
minutes earlier contradicted this assertion. And im-
portantly, trial defense counsel did not object to the Gov-
ernment’s misstatement. In fact, Appellant did not chal-
lenge the composition of the court-martial panel at any
point in the trial proceedings, raising the issue for the first
time on appeal to the CCA.
   Appellant’s general court-martial panel ultimately was
composed of five members, three original members and two
newly detailed members. It was this panel that convicted
Appellant of the Article 120 and Article 134 offenses and
sentenced him to confinement for three years and a
dismissal.
   On appeal to the CCA, Appellant raised various assign-
ments of error, including “whether the court-martial was
improperly constituted.” United States v. King, No. ACM
39583, 2021 CCA LEXIS 415, at *2, 2021 WL 3619892, at
*1 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 16, 2021) (unpublished). In
rendering its opinion, the CCA explained:
          In response to this assignment of error, the
      Government moved to attach a declaration of
      Colonel (Col) WA, the staff judge advocate to the
      general court-martial convening authority. Col
      WA’s declaration includes several attachments
      which document the written excusal request[] of
      Lt Col PBL, dated 14 June 2018, . . . as well as the
      staffing package showing the convening author-
      ity’s decision to excuse [Lt Col PBL]. We granted
      the motion to attach Col WA’s declaration and the
      attachments over Appellant’s objection. We un-
      derstand that we are permitted to consider decla-
      rations from outside the record of trial when nec-
      essary to resolve issues raised by materials in the
      record of trial. See United States v. Jessie, 79 M.J.
      437, 442-44 (C.A.A.F. 2020). This permits us to
      consider the declaration of Col WA and the attach-
      ments. Taken together, these documents show
      that Lt Col PBL was not reassigned to another

                               5
            United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                    Opinion of the Court

      unit on [Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New
      Jersey as he had previously expected] but [in-
      stead] was selected for Air War College on 7 June
      2018 and had a PCS to Maxwell Air Force Base,
      Alabama, not later than 18 July 2018. . . .
          In his written advice to the general court-mar-
      tial convening authority, Col WA, citing R.C.M.
      505(c)(2), stated excusal after assembly may only
      be done for “good cause on the record.” Col WA de-
      fined “good cause” consistent with R.C.M. 505(f)
      and explained that it does not include temporary
      inconveniences which are incident to normal con-
      ditions of military life. The general court-martial
      convening authority excused Lt Col PBL . . . by in-
      itialing next to [his] name[].
Id. at *40-42, 2021 WL 3619892, at *14.
    After considering the staff judge advocate’s declaration
and its attachments, the CCA denied relief on Appellant’s
claim that his court-martial was improperly constituted.
Id. at *46-60, 2021 WL 3619892, at *14-18. Specifically, the
CCA first determined that Appellant had forfeited this is-
sue by failing to raise it at trial. Id. at *46, 2021 WL
3619892, at *15. Then, applying a plain error analysis, the
lower court concluded that “it was plain or obvious error
when the Government failed to show good cause for [Lt Col
PBL’s] excusal on the record.” Id. at *52, 2021 WL 3619892,
at *17. Despite this finding of plain error, the CCA next
determined that Appellant was not entitled to relief be-
cause there was no material prejudice to a substantial
right. Id. at *54-59, 2021 WL 3619892, at *17-18. After con-
sidering the remaining issues, the CCA affirmed the Arti-
cle 120 conviction and its reassessed sentence of confine-
ment for three years and a dismissal. Id. at *5, *186,
2021 WL 3619892, at *2, *57.
                 II. Standards of Review
   In resolving this case, we need to address issues related
to waiver, the attachment of documents on appeal, jurisdic-
tion, and prejudice. These issues implicate multiple stand-
ards of review.

                              6
            United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                    Opinion of the Court

   We review whether an issue is waived de novo. United
States v. Rich, 79 M.J. 472, 475 (C.A.A.F. 2020). We review
whether a lower court properly attached documents for an
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Akbar, 74 M.J.
364, 409 (C.A.A.F. 2015). We review the issue of jurisdic-
tion de novo. United States v. Begani, 81 M.J. 273, 276
(C.A.A.F. 2021). And finally, “[o]ur review for prejudice is
de novo.” United States v. Sigrah, 82 M.J. 463, 467
(C.A.A.F. 2022).
                       III. Discussion
                          A. Waiver
    As a preliminary matter, the Government contends that
Appellant waived by operation of law his claim that the
court-martial was improperly constituted. Rule for Courts-
Martial (R.C.M.) 905(e). The Government notes that the
2016 version of the R.C.M. applies to this case, which states
in relevant part:
      Other motions, requests, defenses, or objections
      [not required to be raised before pleas under
      R.C.M. 905(b)], except lack of jurisdiction or fail-
      ure of a charge to allege an offense, must be raised
      before the court-martial is adjourned for that case
      and, unless otherwise provided in this Manual,
      failure to do so shall constitute waiver.
R.C.M. 905(e) (2016 ed.) (emphasis added). The Govern-
ment then correctly points out that this Court cannot re-
view waived issues because a valid waiver leaves no error
to correct on appeal. See Rich, 79 M.J. at 476.
    We conclude, however, that Appellant has not waived
this issue but merely forfeited it. First, in the past this
Court typically has viewed court-martial composition is-
sues through a forfeiture lens rather than a waiver lens.
See, e.g., United States v. Mack, 58 M.J. 413, 417 (C.A.A.F.
2003) (“Absent objection, any alleged defects in the admin-
istrative process [of excusing primary members and adding

                               7
             United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                     Opinion of the Court

substitute members] are tested for plain error.”). 2 And sec-
ond, we recently noted in United States v. Bench that there
is “debate about the meaning of the word ‘waive[d]’ in
R.C.M. 905(e),” and we determined that forfeiture was the
prudent approach to take under the circumstances. 82 M.J.
388, 393 (C.A.A.F. 2022) (alteration in original). Thus, we
conclude that the language of R.C.M. 905(e) does not man-
date a waiver analysis in the member selection context.
United States v. Cook, 48 M.J. 434, 436 (C.A.A.F. 1998)
(noting although the “dispute about the composition of the
panel [prior to assembly] . . . did not concern appellant at
trial,” this Court reviewed the issue for plain error). 3 Be-
cause forfeiture rather than waiver applies here, we will
review Appellant’s issue for plain error.

   2  See also United States v. Adams, 66 M.J. 255, 257, 259
(C.A.A.F. 2008) (reviewing member selection issue even though
the defense had an “opportunity to object to the appointing order
or the procedure” but did not); United States v. Sargent, 47 M.J.
367, 368, 369 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (noting that defense counsel did
not object to proceeding without” a member and finding that “ap-
pellant has not demonstrated substantial prejudice. Art. 59(a)”);
cf. United States v. Vazquez, 72 M.J. 13, 17 (C.A.A.F. 2013)
(“treat[ing] the failure to object [to the procedure established in
Article 29(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 829(b) (2006)] as forfeiture and
review[ing] for plain error”). Indeed, when reviewing member se-
lection issues in the past, this Court has used the term “waiver”
despite applying a plain error analysis. Cook, 48 M.J. at 436;
United States. v. McElroy, 40 M.J. 368, 371 n.2 (C.M.A. 1994).
This reflects the past reality of “the failure of military courts to
consistently distinguish between the terms ‘waiver’ and ‘forfei-
ture.’ ” United States v. Gladue, 67 M.J. 311, 313 (C.A.A.F. 2009)
(citing United States v. Harcrow, 66 M.J. 154, 156 n.1 (C.A.A.F.
2008)).
   3  R.C.M. 905(e)(2) (2019 ed.) now provides: “Other motions,
requests, defenses, or objections, except lack of jurisdiction or
failure of a charge to allege an offense, must be raised before the
court-martial is adjourned for that case. Failure to raise such
other motions, requests, defenses, or objections, shall constitute
forfeiture, absent an affirmative waiver.” (Emphasis added.)

                                 8
             United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                     Opinion of the Court

          B. Attachment of Documents on Appeal
   In the course of deciding this case, we next must deter-
mine whether it is appropriate for this Court to consider
the documents which the CCA attached to the appellate
record and which contain information about the convening
authority’s decision to excuse Lt Col PBL from Appellant’s
court-martial panel. As indicated above in the excerpt from
the CCA opinion, these documents included Lt Col PBL’s
written excusal request, the staff judge advocate’s advice,
and the convening authority’s decision to excuse Lt Col
PBL, all of which collectively demonstrated why Lt Col
PBL was no longer detailed to Appellant’s court-martial.
For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the CCA
did not abuse its discretion in attaching these documents
and that we may consider them in reaching our decision in
this case.
    Although in United States v. Jessie we held that “a CCA
cannot consider matters outside the ‘entire record,’ ” we
further opined that CCAs may attach documents “when do-
ing so is necessary for resolving issues raised by materials
in the record.” 79 M.J. 437, 444 (C.A.A.F. 2020) (quoting
Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2012)). At Appel-
lant’s court-martial, the convening order stating that Lt
Col PBL was “relieved” from the panel had been “inserted
in the record.” Further, the military judge inquired on the
record about the status of all absent panel members,
prompting the senior trial counsel to erroneously state that
Lt Col PBL had been “excused at an earlier session.” Nev-
ertheless, the record did not provide the CCA with infor-
mation about the circumstances under which Lt Col PBL
had been relieved or excused, and the documents were nec-
essary to resolve the question of whether the panel was im-
properly constituted. Thus, the CCA acted within the pa-
rameters of our Jessie decision when it decided to attach
and consider the documents at issue here. 4

   4  Appellant asserts that Jessie is inapposite to the instant
case. Specifically, he argues that Jessie refers to “the entire rec-
ord” which can include such material as post-trial submissions,

                                 9
             United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                     Opinion of the Court

    Consistent with our decision in Jessie, we further note
that it would be incongruous for this Court to allow a de-
fense counsel to wait until appeal to raise for the first time
an excusal issue that had not been previously raised at
trial, but then prevent the government from having an op-
portunity to effectively respond to that issue by blocking
the government’s efforts to attach relevant documents on
appeal. To do so would result in appellants automatically
getting a new trial even in those instances where a defense
counsel “sandbagged” the government by intentionally fail-
ing to raise an excusal issue at trial. We decline to adopt
that approach.
    We therefore hold that the CCA did not abuse its dis-
cretion by attaching relevant materials that were outside
the record to resolve Appellant’s member selection issue,
and we will consider these documents in the course of de-
ciding the granted issue.
                       C. Jurisdiction
                      1. Applicable Law
   We next turn our attention to the very heart of this
case—the question of whether the court-martial was
properly constituted.
   “[C]ourt members are, unless properly waived, an indis-
pensable jurisdictional element of a general court-martial.”
United States v. Ryan, 5 M.J. 97, 101 (C.M.A. 1978). Mili-
tary law distinguishes between the excusal of detailed
members before and after assembly. See R.C.M.
505(c)(1)-(2) (2016 ed.); R.C.M. 911 Discussion (2016 ed.)
(“Assembly of the court-martial is significant because it

but that R.C.M. 505(c)(2)(A)(i) (2016 ed.) refers to good cause
“shown on the record” which means that the matter must have
been “discussed in open court in a manner such that it can be
seen in the printed transcript or heard in the audio recording of
the in-court sessions.” Reply Brief on Behalf of Appellant at 6,
United States v. King, No. 22˗0008 (C.A.A.F. June 10, 2022) (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted). We disagree. We conclude that
Jessie is on point in this case and that the phrase “shown on the
record” encompasses “the entire record.”

                               10
            United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                    Opinion of the Court

marks the point after which . . . substitution of the mem-
bers . . . may no longer take place without good
cause . . . .”). “Prior to assembly of the court-martial, the
convening authority has unfettered power to excuse any
member of the court from participating in the case.” Cook,
48 M.J. at 436 (emphasis added) (citing Article 25(e),
UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 825(e)); R.C.M. 505(c)(1)(A) (2016 ed.).
However, after assembly:
      No member of a general or special court-martial
      may be absent or excused . . . unless excused as a
      result of a challenge, excused by the military
      judge for physical disability or other good cause,
      or excused by order of the convening authority for
      good cause.
Article 29(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 829(a) (2012) (emphasis
added). Consistent with this statute, R.C.M. 505(c)(2)(A)
(2016 ed.) states in relevant part: “After assembly no mem-
ber may be excused, except: (i) By the convening authority
for good cause shown on the record . . . .”
   After assembly, new members may only be detailed to a
court-martial panel if the panel has fallen below quorum
due to lawful excusals. Article 29(b)(1), UCMJ; R.C.M.
505(c)(2)(B) (2016 ed.). If the court-martial is below
quorum, “the trial may not proceed unless the convening
authority details new members sufficient in number to pro-
vide” a quorum. Article 29(b)(1), UCMJ.
   “This Court’s case law distinguishes between jurisdic-
tional and administrative errors in the convening of a
court-martial. Jurisdictional error occurs when a court-
martial is not constituted in accordance with the UCMJ.”
Adams, 66 M.J. at 258. “A court-martial composed of mem-
bers who are barred from participating by operation of law,
or who were never detailed by the convening authority, is
improperly constituted and the findings must be set aside
as invalid” because such error is jurisdictional. Id. On the
other hand, “[a]dministrative errors in the drafting of a
convening order are not necessarily fatal to jurisdiction,
and may be tested for prejudice under Article 59(a), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 859(a).” Id. at 259; Cook, 48 M.J. at 436 (“Any

                             11
             United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                     Opinion of the Court

error with respect to such an administrative matter must
be tested for prejudice.”).
                          2. Analysis
   We conclude that the error in this case arising from the
Government’s failure to document at trial the convening
authority’s reason for excusing Lt Col PBL was not juris-
dictional in nature.
    As a foundational legal point, we note that in prior cases
this Court has treated as an administrative error the gov-
ernment’s failure to place on the record the reason that ex-
isted for excusing a panel member. United States v. Mat-
thews, 17 C.M.A. 632, 635-36, 38 C.M.R. 430, 433-34 (1968)
(stating the error of not establishing on the record good
cause for the member excusal was “not jurisdictional”); see
also United States v. Latimer, 30 M.J. 554, 563 (A.C.M.R.
1990) (“it is generally agreed that noncompliance with Ar-
ticle 29(a), UCMJ, is not jurisdictional error, provided a
quorum remains” (citations omitted)). These precedents
control in the instant matter.
   We next note that there was indeed “good cause” for the
convening authority to excuse Lt Col PBL from the panel.
To begin with, there is nothing in the record that indicates
that Lt Col PBL’s unanticipated assignment to the Air War
College was just a pretext to remove him from Appellant’s
court-martial panel. 5 And critically, as seen below, Lt Col
PBL’s assignment to the Air War College—which began be-
fore the commencement of Appellant’s continued trial—
was a proper reason to excuse Lt Col PBL under the rules. 6

   5 Appellant asserts that he was wrongly accused of sexual
assault and notes that during voir dire Lt Col PBL stated that
he also had been wrongly accused of sexual assault, perhaps
leading the Government to surmise that Lt Col PBL—who was
slated to serve as the president of the panel—would have been
sympathetic to Appellant’s claims at trial.
   6  Indeed, at oral argument, Appellant did not challenge Lt
Col PBL’s assignment to the Air War College as being insuffi-
cient to show good cause for the excusal. Instead, Appellant’s po-
sition was that this Air War College rationale was not shown on

                               12
             United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                     Opinion of the Court

    R.C.M. 505(f) (2016 ed.) states in pertinent part that
good cause includes “military exigency . . . and other ex-
traordinary circumstances which render the mem-
ber . . . unable to proceed with the court-martial,” but good
cause does not include “temporary inconveniences which
are incident to normal conditions of military life.” For an
officer such as Lt Col PBL, who was initially assigned to
serve on Appellant’s court-martial panel at Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, his subsequent as-
signment to the intensive Air War College in Montgomery,
Alabama, was not just a “temporary inconvenience[]” but
instead was a “military exigency . . . and other extraordi-
nary circumstance[]” which merited his excusal.
    Therefore, considering the documents properly at-
tached by the CCA, we conclude that there was good cause
for the convening authority to excuse Lt Col PBL, and thus
the Government’s error in failing to note the convening au-
thority’s reasoning on the trial record was not jurisdic-
tional but rather was administrative in nature. 7 As a final
step in our analysis, we turn to the issue of prejudice.

the record. Also, in Appellant’s reply brief, he stated that “Ap-
pellant does not argue that selection for professional military ed-
ucation may never qualify as ‘good cause’ for excusing a member
from court-martial service.” Reply Brief on Behalf of Appellant
at 17, United States v. King, No. 22-0008.
   7 In addition to his arguments regarding Lt Col PBL, Appel-
lant asserts that there was jurisdictional error because of the
unexplained status of Col DL. Appellant’s reasoning is summa-
rized as follows: Because Col DL was a detailed member to Ap-
pellant’s court-martial, he should have been counted towards
quorum. As a result, even assuming that Lt Col KW’s excusal
was proper, Appellant’s court-martial never fell below quorum
because there were still five panel members—the four other
members impaneled after voir dire, including Lt Col PBL, and
the detailed alternate member, Col DL, who had not been re-
lieved after assembly of Appellant’s court-martial. That is, Lt
Col PBL and Col DL had not been properly excused under
R.C.M. 505(c)(2)(A) (2016 ed.), so they were still members. Be-
cause the excusals of Lt Col PBL and Col DL were not shown on
the record under R.C.M. 505(c)(2)(A)(i) (2016 ed.), Appellant’s

                                13
             United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                     Opinion of the Court

                          D. Prejudice
    The administrative error committed by the Government
in this case is reviewed for plain error. This standard of
review is applicable because Appellant did not challenge at
trial the Government’s failure to show good cause on the
record for excusing Lt Col PBL.
    Under the plain error standard of review, an appellant
“bears the burden of establishing: (1) there is error; (2) the
error is clear or obvious; and (3) the error materially prej-
udiced a substantial right.” United States v. Robinson,
77 M.J. 294, 299 (C.A.A.F. 2018). The Government com-
mendably and appropriately concedes the first two prongs
of this test, stating that “there was an administrative error
under R.C.M. 505(c)(2)(A)(i) when no good cause was
shown on the record for the excusal of Lt Col [PBL]” and
that this “was plain and obvious error.” Brief for Appellee
at 13, 24, United States v. King, No. 22˗0008 (C.A.A.F. May

court-martial never fell below quorum, and the convening au-
thority did not have the authority to detail new members under
R.C.M. 505(c)(2)(B) (2016 ed.). As a result, the convening author-
ity’s appointment of new members was unlawful, and these pu-
tative new members of the panel were actually interlopers.
Thus, there was jurisdictional error in this case.
    We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant
does not challenge before this Court the excusal of the other orig-
inal member—Lt Col KW—and the CCA found this member’s
excusal was supported by “sufficient good cause shown on the
record.” King, 2021 CCA LEXIS 415, at *53, 2021 WL 3619892,
at *17. In light of our conclusion that Lt Col PBL’s excusal also
was proper, the court-martial panel dropped below quorum even
considering Col DL’s unexplained and unchallenged absence.
The convening authority was then authorized to detail addi-
tional members to the court-martial when the court-martial fell
below quorum. Article 29(b)(1), UCMJ; R.C.M. 505(c)(2)(B) (2016
ed). Following additional voir dire and member challenges of the
replacement members, Appellant’s court-martial constituted a
quorum of five members. Because there was a quorum of five
properly appointed members, Appellant’s general court-martial
had jurisdiction over his case. Article 16(1)(A), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C.
§ 816(1)(A) (2012).

                                14
             United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                     Opinion of the Court

31, 2022). As a result, the only issue left for this Court to
consider is whether Appellant has met his burden of show-
ing prejudice arising from the Government’s failure at trial
to place on the record the good cause for excusing Lt Col
PBL. 8
    We conclude that Appellant has not met his burden. We
initially note that an accused is not entitled to a specific
panel member. See United States v. Easton, 71 M.J. 168,
176 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (noting that military accused do not
have the right to have their cases tried by a particular
court). Moreover, despite the false accusation of rape
against Lt Col PBL, it is rank speculation that he would
have been favorable to the defense as a panel member.
    Appellant claims that because the Government failed to
raise at trial the reason why the convening authority “re-
lieved” Lt Col PBL from serving on the court-martial, he
“was denied the opportunity to investigate the legitimacy
of Lt Col PBL’s request for excusal and litigate the issue at
trial.” Brief for Appellant at 26-27, United States v. King,
No. 22˗0008 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 28, 2022). Appellant makes a
fair point. However, we note that Appellant was fully
aware of Lt Col PBL’s absence at trial and this issue was
raised by the military judge and the Government on the
record, and yet Lt Col PBL’s absence did not elicit an objec-
tion or even a comment, question, or concern by the de-
fense. If Appellant had raised this issue in any manner dur-
ing the court-martial, he most certainly would have been
provided “the opportunity to investigate the legitimacy of
Lt Col PBL’s request for excusal and litigate the issue at
trial.” Id. at 26. Therefore, by not objecting at trial, Appel-
lant shares responsibility for creating the situation about
which he now complains and for precluding the timely res-
olution of the matter. United States v. Marshall, 67 M.J.
418, 419 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (“The purpose of the forfeiture
rule is to ensure that the trial judge has the opportunity to

   8 There is no constitutional error here, and as such, the bur-
den is on Appellant to show prejudice. United States v. To-
varchavez, 78 M.J. 458, 462 & n.6 (C.A.A.F. 2019).

                               15
             United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                     Opinion of the Court

rule on issues arising at trial, and to prevent the raising of
such issues for the first time on appeal, after any chance to
correct them has vanished.” (footnote omitted)).
    Additionally, consistent with the explanation provided
in supra note 7 we conclude that contrary to Appellant’s
assertion, the excusal of Lt Col PBL did not result in any
interlopers sitting on the panel. An interloper is under-
stood to be one “who was not detailed at all to the court-
martial on which he sat.” United States v. Gebhart, 34 M.J.
189, 192 (C.M.A. 1992). Here, the convening authority
properly detailed additional members to the panel when it
fell below quorum—which was his right. See Article
29(b)(1), UCMJ.
   Finally, we note that the change in the members of the
panel did not change the number of votes Appellant needed
to obtain an acquittal because there were still five panel
members. See Article 52(a)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 852(a)(2)
(2012).
   Based on these factors, we conclude that although Ap-
pellant can meet the first two prongs of the plain error
standard of review, he fails to establish prejudice. 9 Accord-
ingly, we hold that even though the convening authority
excused a panel member after the court-martial was as-
sembled without placing on the trial record the good cause
that existed for doing so, Appellant’s request that we set
aside his conviction and sentence must be denied because
he has failed to demonstrate prejudice arising from this ad-
ministrative error.

   9  Appellant claims that a presumption of prejudice applies
because (1) the failure to show good cause on the record is like
an incomplete record of trial and (2) there is an Article 29 viola-
tion. We disagree. The excusal documents were not a part of the
record of trial, and so the omission of those documents did not
make the record incomplete. And when the CCA properly at-
tached those documents, that material demonstrated the good
cause the convening authority had for excusing Lt Col PBL.

                                16
           United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                   Opinion of the Court

                      IV. Judgment
   The judgment of the United States Air Force Court of
Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

                            17
             United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF

   Judge MAGGS, concurring in the judgment.
    Appellant contends that his court-martial was improperly
constituted. His argument is that a detailed panel member
was absent without being excused by the convening authority
for “ ‘good cause shown on the record’ ” in violation of Rule for
Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 505(c)(2)(A)(i). 1 The Government re-
sponds that the objection that Appellant now raises was
waived by operation of law under R.C.M. 905(e) because Ap-
pellant did not make the objection at trial. The Government
asserts that we therefore cannot consider it. The Court today
holds that Appellant did not waive his objection but merely
forfeited it. Accordingly, the Court determines that it must
review the issue for plain error. Applying plain error review,
the Court determines that Appellant has demonstrated an er-
ror, that the error was clear and obvious, but that Appellant
has not shown that this error caused him prejudice. The Court
therefore concludes that Appellant is not entitled to relief.
   I reach the same result as the Court but for a different
reason. Unlike the Court, I agree with the Government
that Appellant’s objection was waived by operation of law
and not merely forfeited. I write separately to explain my
disagreement.
                               I.
    Waiver differs from forfeiture. When an objection to an
alleged error is waived, this Court cannot review the objec-
tion on appeal. United States v. Rich, 79 M.J. 472, 476
(C.A.A.F. 2020). In contrast, if the objection is merely for-
feited, this Court may review the issue for plain error.
United States v. Gladue, 67 M.J. 311, 313 (C.A.A.F. 2009).
When conducting a plain error review of a nonconstitu-
tional issue, this Court may grant relief only if the appel-
lant proves that there was an error, that the error was clear
and obvious, and that the error caused material prejudice.
United States v. Robinson, 77 M.J. 294, 299 (C.A.A.F.
2018).

   1 The parties agree that the version of the R.C.M. that ap-
pears in the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.)
(MCM), applies to this case.
            United States v King, No. 22-0008/AF
          Judge MAGGS, concurring in the judgment

   In this case, Appellant did not object to the absence of a
member of his court-martial until after his trial was over.
R.C.M. 905(e) specifies the “[e]ffect of failure to raise de-
fenses or objections.” This provision contains three sen-
tences. The first two sentences are not applicable to this
case because they concern only the pretrial objections listed
in R.C.M. 905(b)(1)-(6), which do not include an objection
based on the absence of an unexcused court member. Id.
The third sentence then says: “Other motions, requests, de-
fenses, or objections, except lack of jurisdiction or failure of
a charge to allege an offense, must be raised before the
court-martial is adjourned for that case and, unless other-
wise provided in this Manual, failure to do so shall consti-
tute waiver.” Id.
    The Government argues that Appellant’s objection to
the composition of his court-martial fits within the third
sentence of R.C.M. 905(e). I agree. Appellant’s objection is
an example of the “[o]ther . . . objections” that the third sen-
tence of R.C.M. 905(e) contemplates because it is not one of
the objections listed in R.C.M. 905(b)(1)-(6). The Govern-
ment therefore argues that the objection is waived by oper-
ation of law. I also agree with this assessment. Appellant’s
objection is one that “must be raised before the court-mar-
tial is adjourned.” Accordingly, because Appellant did not
raise it, I conclude that his “failure to do so . . . constitute[s]
waiver” under the plain meaning of R.C.M. 905(e). 2

   2  The President’s decision to use the term “waiver” in the
third sentence of R.C.M. 905(e) did not violate Article 36, Uni-
form Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 836 (1982),
the statute that authorized the President to promulgate the rule
in 1984. Article 36, UCMJ, granted the President discretion to
prescribe procedural rules that conform “so far as he considers
practicable” to the rules applied in criminal cases tried in the
United States district courts. The article, however, did not re-
quire the President to explain why he considered it practicable
to follow some of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure but
not others. Reviewing this Court’s past decisions, Judge Everett
has written that “the President’s determination of practicability
seems nonreviewable, unless it clashes with a specific provision
of the Uniform Code or the Constitution.” Robinson O. Everett,

                                3
            United States v King, No. 22-0008/AF
          Judge MAGGS, concurring in the judgment

                                II.
   The question of whether Appellant waived or forfeited
his objection would require no more discussion except for

Some Comments on the Role of Discretion in Military Justice, 37
Law & Contemp. Probs. 173, 180 (1972). But even if this Court
were to insist that the President’s determination of practicabil-
ity have some rational basis, that standard would be easily met
here.
    When the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC)
drafted the MCM (1984 ed.), it announced that the first of its
“basic goals” was that “the new Manual was to conform to Fed-
eral practice to the extent possible, except where the Uniform
Code of Military Justice requires otherwise or where specific mil-
itary requirements render such conformity impracticable.”
MCM, Analysis app. 21 at A21-1 (1984 ed.) (citing Article 36,
UCMJ) [hereinafter Analysis]. Accordingly, the JSC carefully
considered analogous provisions in the Federal Rules of Crimi-
nal Procedure when it drafted R.C.M. 905(e). In its Analysis of
R.C.M. 905(e), the JSC explained:
       The first two sentences in this subsection are
       taken from Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(f) . . . . The third
       sentence is based on paragraph 67a of MCM, 1969
       (Rev.). The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
       do not expressly provide for waiver of motions
       other than those listed in Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)
       . . . . Nevertheless, it has been contended that be-
       cause Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2) provides that lack
       of jurisdiction or failure to allege an offense “shall
       be noticed by the court at any time during the pen-
       dency of the proceedings,” “it may, by negative im-
       plications be interpreted as foreclosing the other
       defenses if not raised during the trial itself.” 8A J.
       Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 12.03[1] (1982
       rev. ed.). . . . There is no reason why other motions
       should not be waived if not raised at trial. Moore’s,
       supra at ¶ 12.03[1]; accord C. Wright, Federal
       Practice and Procedure § 193 (1969).
Id. at A21-47-A21-48. Although the JSC’s Analysis “does not nec-
essarily reflect the views of the President in approving” the
R.C.M., id. at A21-3, the explanation in the Analysis identifies a
rational basis for the President’s exercise of discretion in using
the word “waiver” in the third sentence of R.C.M. 905(e).

                                 4
           United States v King, No. 22-0008/AF
         Judge MAGGS, concurring in the judgment

one significant problem: our precedents concerning the con-
sequences of failing to make objections to the composition
of courts-martial are all over the map. In at least one prec-
edent, this Court has held that an objection to the compo-
sition of a court-martial “was waived” because “it was not
raised at trial,” and the Court accordingly did not review
the issue. United States v. Curtis, 44 M.J. 106, 133
(C.A.A.F. 1996). Other precedents, however, have treated
the failure to raise such objections as a forfeiture and have
applied plain error review. E.g., United States v. Mack,
58 M.J. 413, 417 (C.A.A.F. 2003); United States v. Adams,
66 M.J. 255, 257, 259 (C.A.A.F. 2008); United States v. Sar-
gent, 47 M.J. 367, 368, 369 (C.A.A.F. 1997). Still others
have stated that a failure to raise such objections consti-
tutes a “waiver” but then have applied what appears to be
plain error review nonetheless. E.g., United States v. Cook,
48 M.J. 434, 436 (C.A.A.F. 1998); United States. v.
McElroy, 40 M.J. 368 (C.M.A. 1994).
    I see no way of reconciling these conflicting decisions.
Significantly, not one of these cases explains why the Court
was treating a failure to object as either a waiver or a for-
feiture. In these circumstances, I do not think that any one
of these decisions has much precedential weight. See Bryan
A. Garner et al., The Law of Judicial Precedent 229 (2016
ed.) (explaining that “a court won’t normally accept as
binding precedent a point that was passed by in silence”);
see also Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507, 511 (1925) (holding
that “[q]uestions which merely lurk in the record, neither
brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are
not to be considered as having been so decided as to consti-
tute precedents”). Accordingly, in deciding this appeal, my
view is that the Court should simply start over and apply
the plain text of R.C.M. 905(e)’s third sentence. Following
this course leads me to conclude that Appellant’s objection
was waived by operation of law. On that basis, I would af-
firm the findings and sentence of the court-martial.
                            III.
   Sometimes deciding whether a failure to make an objec-
tion should be treated as a waiver or a forfeiture may have

                             5
            United States v King, No. 22-0008/AF
          Judge MAGGS, concurring in the judgment

significant consequences. These consequences—rightly or
wrongly—may tilt the scales of judicial interpretation. But
this certainly is not one of those cases. The waiver-versus-
forfeiture issue ultimately does not change the result of
this case because the Court and I agree that Appellant is
not entitled to relief. In addition, the disagreement over
how to interpret the version of R.C.M. 905(e) that applies
to this case will likely have little import in future cases. As
the Court explains, the President recently amended R.C.M.
905(e) to provide that failure to raise “other . . . objections”
shall “constitute forfeiture, absent affirmative waiver.”
R.C.M. 905(e)(2) (2019 ed.). Whatever the interpretation of
R.C.M. 905(e) (2016 ed.) is in this appeal, future cases
should follow the plain meaning of the new text in R.C.M.
905(e) (2019 ed.).
    In addition, except in a most unusual case, regardless
of whether a court decides that the accused’s failure to ob-
ject to a member’s absence should be treated as a waiver or
a forfeiture, the outcome will be the same. If the objection
is waived, the court cannot consider it. Plain error review
is more permissive, but it still requires the appellant to
prove prejudice. Appellants generally cannot prove preju-
dice even if they can show that a court member was absent
without being excused “[b]y the convening authority for
good cause shown on the record,” as R.C.M. 505(c)(2)(A)(i)
requires. To borrow the words of the Court, guessing how
the absent member would have voted will be, in most in-
stances, nothing more than “rank speculation.”
    Confronted with this reality, Appellant argues that
prejudice should be presumed. Some older precedents di-
rectly support this view. E.g., United States v. Greenwell,
12 C.M.A. 560, 562, 31 C.M.R. 146, 148 (1961). But more
recent precedents have applied plain error review without
presuming prejudice. E.g., Mack, 58 M.J. at 417; Adams,
66 M.J. at 259; Sargent, 47 M.J. at 369. Once more seeing
no way to reconcile these precedents, I would again return
to first principles. As explained above, plain error review
requires an appellant to prove prejudice. Robinson, 77 M.J.
at 299. Accordingly, even if an objection to the composition

                               6
           United States v King, No. 22-0008/AF
         Judge MAGGS, concurring in the judgment

of a court-martial is merely forfeited, and not waived, prej-
udice should not be presumed.

                             7
             United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF

   Judge HARDY, concurring.
    I concur with the majority’s reasoning and join the
Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to offer an addi-
tional reason why I think the Court properly treats the
word “waived” in the final sentence of the pre-2019 version
of Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 905(e) (2016 ed.) as
“forfeited,” rather than as “waived.” 1
    Article 36(a) expressly delegates to the President the
authority to prescribe procedural and evidentiary rules for
conducting courts-martial, but that authority is not unlim-
ited. The President’s rules must, “so far as he considers
practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of ev-
idence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in
the United States district courts.” Article 36(a), Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 836(a)
(2012). 2 In the federal civilian courts, the general rule is
that “[a] plain error that affects substantial rights may be
considered even though it was not brought to the court’s
attention.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Thus, civilian federal
courts of appeals generally review errors not timely raised
in federal district court for plain error absent affirmative
waiver. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32
(1993) (explaining the operation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)).
If the President intended the final sentence of
R.C.M. 905(e) (2016 ed.) to preclude the military appellate

   1   The first two sentences of the pre-2019 version of
R.C.M. 905(e) (2016 ed.) address the waiver of objections, mo-
tions, and requests that must be raised in a pretrial motion.
These sentences parallel Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3) and are not at
issue in this case.
   2 Article 36(a), UCMJ, also imposes a second limitation: the
President’s rules generally may not be “inconsistent with” the
other provisions of the UCMJ. Whether interpreting
R.C.M. 905(e) (2016 ed.) as barring appellate review of all issues
not raised at trial is “inconsistent with” the military appellate
courts’ statutory authority to determine whether the findings
and sentence set forth in the entry of judgment are correct in law
is a more nuanced and complicated question that need not be
resolved here.
            United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                  Judge Hardy, concurring

courts from reviewing “[o]ther motions, requests, defenses,
or objections” not raised at trial for plain error, then that
would render R.C.M. 905(e) (2016 ed.) a significant depar-
ture from the “principles of law . . . generally recognized in
the trial of criminal cases in the United States district
courts.” Article 36(a), UCMJ; see Hormel v. Helvering, 312
U.S. 552, 557 (1941) (“A rigid and undeviating judicially
declared practice under which courts of review would in-
variably and under all circumstances decline to consider all
questions which had not previously been specifically urged
would be out of harmony with . . . . the rules of fundamen-
tal justice.”).
    Article 36(a), UCMJ, would permit such a departure if
the President considers adherence to federal practice im-
practicable. But neither the President in the Manual for
Courts-Martial, United States (MCM) nor the Government
in this case has offered any explanation why it would be
impracticable for the military appellate courts to review er-
rors that were not raised by the parties at trial. As the ma-
jority notes, this Court has long interpreted
R.C.M 905(e)—at least in some circumstances—to impose
forfeiture rather than waiver, see United States v. King, __
M.J. __, __ (7-8) (C.A.A.F. 2023), but the Government has
not argued that those opinions have made appeals in those
types of cases impracticable. Moreover, the President’s re-
cent amendment to R.C.M. 905(e)—which replaces
“waiver” with “forfeiture, absent an affirmative waiver”—
is strong evidence that the President considers conformity
with federal practice to be practicable. See R.C.M. 905(e)
(2019 ed.); see also MCM, Analysis of the Rules for Courts-
Martial app. 15 at A15-14 (2019 ed.) (explaining the recent
amendment).
    Interpreting the final sentence of the pre-2019 version
of R.C.M 905(e) (2016 ed.) as barring appellate review of all
issues not raised at trial would represent a significant de-
viation from practice in the federal courts. Absent any in-
dication from the President why the general federal prac-
tice would be impracticable in the military, such an
interpretation would potentially run afoul of Article 36(a),

                              2
            United States v. King, No. 22-0008/AF
                  Judge Hardy, concurring

UCMJ; see United States v. Kohlbek, 78 M.J. 326, 333
(C.A.A.F. 2019) (interpreting Military Rule of Evidence 707
to conform with federal practice in part because although
“[t]he presence of a unique military concern could make fol-
lowing the federal practice . . . impracticable and justify a
divergent rule. . . . no such military concern is obvious here”
(citations omitted)). Because “[a]n interpretation of a stat-
ute or rule that renders it valid is preferable to an inter-
pretation that would invalidate the rule,” I agree that we
should interpret the final sentence of R.C.M 905(e) (2016
ed.) as imposing forfeiture rather than waiver. Kohlbek, 78
M.J. at 332 (citing Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner,
Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 66 (2012)).
I therefore concur that Appellant forfeited the issue and
plain error is the appropriate standard of review in this
case.

                              3