Court Opinion

ID: 9837055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:16:09.048055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:20.110186
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in the result):
The staff judge advocate (SJA)’s letter sought court nominations from every grade from E-5 to 0-6 to be included in the recommended jury pool. The implicit exclusion of certain ranks (E^4 and below) in appellant’s case troubles me. However, the SJA’s letter, on its face, was designated as mere guidance, and the convening authority was informed of his opportunity to select anyone from his command. Moreover, the military judge found that no bad intent to influence the court-martial and no deliberate stacking of the pool existed, as in United States v. Hilow, 32 MJ 439 (CMA 1991). I would hold there was no violation of Articles 25 and 37, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 825 and 837, in these circumstances. Perhaps, if a random jury selection system now being studied by the Department of Defense is adopted, challenges like the one in this case will occur less. See United States v. Upshaw, 49 MJ 111, 114 (1998)(Sullivan, J., concurring).