Filter Results

Keywords
Active Filters
X United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Filter by Topic
Jurisdiction
Filter by Content Type

Showing 1 - 8 of 8 results

    • Brief

    United States v. Martinez

    Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant.


    Argument: NACDL’s amicus brief argues that Article 52(a)(3) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 852(a)(3), which permits nonunanimous verdicts by only a three-fourths majority in non-capital courts-martial involving serious offenses, is unconstitutional under Ramos v. Louisiana.  Courts-martial have been considered “judicial” for almost 135 years.  The UCMJ contemplates that the accused must be given a fair trial, and courts have recognized that the test of fairness requires that military rulings on constitutional issues conform to Supreme Court standards unless conditions peculiar to military life require a different rule.  The Sixth Amendment has already been extensively incorporated into our military justice system.  With the exception of unanimous verdicts, servicemembers facing a court-martial for serious offenses receive the core panoply of constitutional trial rights, and the military justice system is none the worse-for-wear as a result.  Contrary to the lower court’s assertion, non-unanimity promotes unlawful command influence, rather than preventing it.  Although Congressional powers are necessarily broad in the area of military affairs, they are not absolute or unlimited.  Whether found under the Due Process Clause or, as Ramos holds, under the Sixth Amendment’s Impartial Jury Clause, the right to a unanimous verdict in a criminal prosecution is constitutionally mandated.  It is the Constitution that controls on this issue, not a provision within the UCMJ.