Court Opinion

ID: 9653712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:52:22.682488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:00.881876
License: Public Domain

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
For the purpose of this dissent it will be assumed that compliance with Article of War 70 conditions the jurisdiction of a general court-martial, though the proposition is open to grave doubt.1 But with this *67assumption there seems no adequate basis for rejecting the Trial Court’s conclusion that the requirements of that Article were complied with and that a thorough and impartial investigation was made prior to the appellant’s trial. Such a conclusion is one of fact not law and when made by a District Judge should be allowed to stand unless we think it clearly wrong and, of course, this is especially true where he, and not we, have had the benefit of the presence of witnesses giving oral testimony. Elaboration of the wording and effect of Rule 52 is unnecessary.
The bases for rejecting the Trial Judge’s conclusion here seem inadequate. Quite obviously Lieutenant Todd was not the party offended and had no individual concern in this soldier’s prosecution. The record affirmatively shows that he busied himself in securing witnesses requested by the petitioner. It seems to me clear that the sum total of his activities at the investigation stage of the case were only matters called for in the performance of his duties as Provost Marshal at this particular air base. For instance, it is said that he took statements from complaining witnesses. If he did, it would seem to me to have no significance in making a conclusion concerning the fairness of his investigation. But his signature on the photostat of those statements is only as an authenticating officer: in other words, he simply certifies certain writing as a true copy of another writing. The statements in fact were taken by a man named Felton, a British police constable. It is true that Lieutenant Todd in cooperation with the British police conducted the line-up in which the girls who claimed to have been attacked identified Smith. The Lieutenant did that because it was part of his official duties. It does not, it is submitted, in the least show any bias against this prisoner. The girls made the identification, not Todd.
I cannot follow the reasoning by which it is thought that Lieutenant Todd’s participation as an Assistant Trial Judge Advocate of the court-martial showed a lack of fair or thorough investigation. Possibly such previous work as investigator would make it inappropriate for him to sit as a member of a judicial tribunal.2 But he only acted as counsel and assistant counsel at that. The use of information gained in the investigation, assuming it was made, does not show the investigation was not impartial and objective.
The last point relied on to prove lack of thoroughness in the investigation was the failure to call Mrs. Kerry. There are three answers to this: One is that Smith, himself, did not want her called. The second is that at most she was present only at the first meeting between Smith and the complaining witness in the attempt case. And, third, I submit there is no basis for requiring that an investigation, -in order to be thorough and impartial, seek out every person mentioned in connection with the affair under scrutiny, especially after a preliminary statement has been taken indicating the probable content of what such person would have to say.
This is a case where, in my opinion, the conclusion reached by the Trial Judge should stand and it seems to me that we are going beyond our proper function in upsetting it.

 At least since 1943 the administrative interpretations of such section have been uniformly of the view that it was not jurisdictional. Holding of Board of Review in C. M. 299477, Floyd, 17 B. R. 145, 153-6 (decided February 2, 1943); Holding of Board of Review in C. M. 323486, Ruckman (1947). The contents of the legislative history cited in the majority’s opinion compels the view that Congress apparently agrees with such interpretation and did not at that time desire to change it. Furthermore, the opinion of the Judge Advocate General cited in the majority’s opinion to the effect that the Article is jurisdictional was superseded by his opinion in the Floyd case. See 57 Tale L.J. 483, 485 (1948). That earlier opinion, moreover, was in a case where the Judge Advocate General had found no pre-trial investigation whatsoever. See 57 Tale L.J., supra, 484, f. n. 15.
The authorities relied upon do not persuade such a conclusion. They all rely upon the superseded Judge Advocate General’s opinion and are cases in which the irregularities in the pre-trial investigations permeated the trial itself. Thus in Hicks v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa.1946, 64 F.Supp. 238 the telling of the accused that his pre-trial statements would be used only in his favor induced statements which were used against him at the trial. Moreover, the matters vital to the accused’s defense were not investigated on the mistaken notion that they were incompetent in the consideration of the offense. Anthony v. Hunter, D.C.Kan. 1947, 71 F.Supp. 823, also relied upon the superseded opinion and the witnesses requested by the accused were not produced at the pre-trial investigation or the *67trial. The only two Circuit Court of Appeals eases which deal at all with the point are as much in favor of the Government as the Petitioner. Waite v. Overlade, 7 Cir., 1947, 164 F.2d 722; Reilly v. Pescor, 8 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 632, certiorari denied, 1946, 329 U.S. 790, 67 S.Ct. 353, 91 L.Ed. 676.

 But cf. Keyes v. United States, 1883, 109 U.S. 336, 38 S.Ct. 202, 27 L.Ed. 954, in which the validity of a court-martial sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court where the same officer was a complainant, testified as a witness, and sat and passed judgment as a member of the court-martial. Carter v. Wood-ring, 1937, 67 App.D.C. 393, 92 F.2d 544, certiorari denied, 1937, 302 U.S. 752, 58 S.Ct. 283, 82 L.Ed. 582.