Court Opinion

ID: 9653718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:52:29.767466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:00.912535
License: Public Domain

MURRAH, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
In support of his contention that compliance with Article of War 70 is jurisdictional, petitioner relies strongly upon a very recent decision of this court in which we said that “ * * * Taking into consideration the plain language and the intended purpose of the Article [70], it is clear that a preliminary investigation in substantial compliance with its requirement is essential to a válid conviction and sentence by a court-martial.” Benjamin v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 512, 514.
Taken out of its context this language may be susceptible of the meaning sought to be given it by the petitioner, but when considered in its proper relation to the question involved no such construction can be placed upon it. In the Benjamin case the validity of the sentence of the court-martial was challenged “on the single ground that it violates due process” for failure to observe requirements of Article 70. We held that since the preliminary investigation was in substantial compliance with Article 70 the constitutional or fundamental rights of the petitioner were not invaded in a manner to void the sentence. Cf. Waite v. Overlade, 7 Cir., 164 F.2d 722; certiorari denied 334 U.S. 812, 68 S.Ct. 1017.
None of the cases cited, or which I have been able to find, hold or infer that failure to comply with Article 70 ousts the court-martial of jurisdiction to try one charged with an offense under Military Law. On the contrary, all the decisions and the plain reasoning lead to the conclusion that Article 70, like other procedural requirements, is a safeguard for due process of law — a pattern for a full and fair hearing. This view is consistent with the purpose of Military Law to insure due process for the trial of those charged with its infractions. It is consistent with the construction placed upon arraignments under civil law. Cf. Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642, 34 S.Ct. 456, 58 L.Ed. 772.
Lest .failure to cite and explain the Benjamin case might offer some encouragement to those who would rely upon the isolated statement, and in the interest of precedent, I deem it appropriate to append this comment to the opinion of the court.