Law Commons^™

This Is Not Your Grandparents' Military Justice System: The 2022 And 2023 National Defense Authorization Acts, David A. Schlueter, Lisa M. Schenck

Faculty Articles

Despite the major reforms to the American military justice system in the 2016 Military Justice Act, the drumbeat for reform has continued. One of the most-often heard calls for reform over the last decade has suggested removing commanders from the military justice system. Some have argued that a command-centric military justice system was outdated, and it was time to make the system look more like the Federal criminal procedure system. Other critics have advocated for a military justice system that looks more like those of our allied nations. This article briefly addresses the 2022 and 2023 NDAA changes to the …

National, Military, And College Reports On Prosecution Of Sexual Assaults And Victims’ Rights: Is The Military Actually Safer Than Civilian Society?, David A. Schlueter, Lisa M. Schenck

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Taking Charge Of Court-Martial Charges: The Important Role Of The Commander In The American Military Justice System, David A. Schlueter, Lisa M. Schenck

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Reforming Military Justice: An Analysis Of The Military Justice Act Of 2016, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

The 2016 amendments to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”) amounted to a sea change in American military justice. The Military Justice Act of 2016—a major reform of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—is set out in Division E of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, and was signed into law by the President on December 23, 2016. Most of the amendments to the UCMJ addressed in this article will not become effective for some time—perhaps not until January 1, 2019 and in the interim, the current provisions of the UCMJ will continue to apply. Overall, …

The Texas Rules Of Evidence: Something Old, Something New, And Something Changed, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

On November 19, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court issued an Order amending all of the Texas Rules of Evidence, effective April 1, 2015. In its Order, the Court explained that the amendments were part of an effort to “restyle” the Rules, to make them as consistent as possible with the Federal Rules of Evidence, and to make them easier to understand.

The 2015 amendments to the Texas Rules of Evidence are a commendable step toward making the Rules more user-friendly. It is clear to even the casual reader that the reformatting of the Rules, through the use of consistent and …

American Military Justice: Responding To The Siren Songs For Reform, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

Today, the American military justice system is being subjected to sweet and enticing calls for reform. At first hearing, the well-intentioned proposed reforms appeal to a sense of justice. On closer examination, however, those proposed reforms threaten the essence and functionality of an effective and efficient system of criminal justice that is applied in world-wide settings, in both peacetime and in war.

In the last several decades, an increasing number of commentators have recommended reforms to virtually every component of the military system. The most recent round of proposals arose from frustration and anger that many feel towards the military’s …

Federal Rules Update: How Rules Are Made: A Brief Review, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

A number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Procedure and Evidence became effective on December 1, 2009. The change to Criminal Rule 7 deleted subdivision (c)(2), which required that the indictment include notice that the defendant has an interest in forfeitable property. Criminal Rule 32 now provides that the presentence report state whether the government is seeking forfeiture of property. Criminal Rule 32.2 received six amendments concerning criminal forfeiture. Criminal Rule 41 created a two-step process for seizing and reviewing electronic storage media. Further, of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings, Rule 11 was created to make the requirements …

A Call For Comment: Restyling And Amending The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

In August 2000, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure published—for public comment—proposed amendments to the entire set of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The proposals mark the culmination of a two-year project to “restyle” the rules—to modernize and reorganize and to make them internally consistent in format and style. Not since the rules were first promulgated in 1946 has there been such a significant change in the structure, format, and substance. This article first addresses the rule-making process for the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and then examines the restyling process. Finally, it notes several of …

Military Justice For The 1990’S: A Legal System Looking For Respect, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

Noting that the American military justice system is often the subject of criticism and derision, the author explores the criticisms often leveled at the military justice system and targets a number of areas where the system seems most vulnerable, such as size and composition of the courts-martial, the role of the commander in the system and offers suggestions for reform.

Investigative Detentions For Purposes Of Fingerprinting, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

This article focuses on constitutional issues associated with fingerprinting suspects in investigative detention. Following a series of barracks larcenies, Naval Investigative Service (NIS) investigators fingerprinted approximately 100 servicemembers. All those ordered to report to the NIS office for fingerprinting had been present in the unit at the time of the offenses, and among those was the accused, who was later linked to the crime through his fingerprints. Before the accused reported to the NIS office there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that he was in any way involved in the crimes. Were the fingerprints admissible?

United …

Judicial Federalism And Supreme Court Review Of State Court Decisions: A Sensible Balance Emerges, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

State courts are free to exercise final authority as arbiters of state law and adopt state standards that protect individual rights more than federal law. While state courts have responded to such urgings with expansive rulings, they have not always been careful about spelling out in their decisions whether they were relying on state law, federal law, or both. This judicial imprecision creates a jurisdictional dilemma for the Supreme Court when it is asked to review the state court decision. If the state's decision rests on independent and adequate state grounds, the Court will apply judicial restraint and decline review. …

Court-Martial Jurisdiction: An Expansion Of The Least Possible Power, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

This article examines the statutory and judicial developments that have apparently expanded military jurisdiction. Serving as the core for this discussion is the amendment to Article 2, UCMJ, and the Court of Military Appeals’ decision in United States v. Trottier, 9 M.J. 337 (C.M.A. 1980), dealing with subject matter jurisdiction of courts-martial over drug-related offenses by service members.

Bodily Evidence And Rule 312, M.R.E., David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

n addressing the issues of obtaining bodily evidence, such as bodily fluids, from a suspect, Rule 312 of the Military Rules of Evidence must be considered in conjunction with the issues of self-incrimination, due process, and the Fourth Amendment. The Rule describes the procedures for collection of bodily evidence of service members. For example, a service member may not invoke the right against self-incrimination for external bodily evidence, but may when bodily fluids or cavity searches are requested. Any nonconsensual search may be conducted if it is both reasonable and performed under one of the authorized procedures of Rule 312. …

Tempia, Turner, Mcomber And The Military Rules Of Evidence: A Right To Counsel Trio With The New Look, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

The potential for litigating right to counsel issues is ripe, and the new Military Rules of Evidence and recent case law ensure ample opportunity for litigation. Several significant developments in the law of military interrogations warrant an examination of a military suspect’s right to counsel. A series of Court of Military Appeals decisions have either clarified or expanded military case law on military interrogations. The pending new Military Rules of Evidence will implement a large amount of military case law, in some instances alter existing law, and more closely align military interrogation practices with prevailing civilian rules. Counsel should focus …

Wagner, Valadez And Harrison: A Definitive Enlistment Trilogy, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

One area where enlistment law has received keen scrutiny is the subject of enlistment contracts vis a vis the question of personal jurisdiction. The Court of Military Appeals’s decision in United States v. Wagner served as the keystone for the Valadez and Harrison decisions. The Court in Wagner established the concept of constructive enlistment, which it subsequently relied on in Valadez and Harrison.

In Wagner, the court addressed whether a regulatory disqualification in and of itself voids the original enlistment contract for purposes of court-martial jurisdiction. The Court stated the regulation in question was not sufficient to void Wagner’s enlistment …

The Enlistment Contract: A Uniform Approach, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

The author explores the history of various jurisdictional and administrative issues that arise under consideration of a service member’s enlistment contract. He proposes a change to the Uniform Code of Military Justice to codify the constructive enlistment doctrine for establishing personal court-martial jurisdiction over service members whose enlistment contracts and entry onto active duty were facilitated by recruiter misconduct. The proposal later became part of amendment to Art. 2, U.C.M.J..

Constructive Enlistments: Alive And Well, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

Despite the predicted demise of the doctrine of constructive enlistments, recent case law from the Courts of Military Appeals has extended its existence. The constructive enlistment is recognized as a means of changing one’s status from civilian to servicemember where some deficiencies exist in the formal enlistment process.

In a trio of cases, United States v. Brown, United States v. Catlow, and United States v. Russo, the Court of Military Appeals laid a firm foundation for estopping the government from relying upon constructive enlistments in order to establish in personam court-martial jurisdiction. This trio of cases raised more questions than …

Captain’S Advisory Council Notes, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

On 24 and 25 June 1974, the Captain’s Advisory Council, with the cooperation of the Fort Meade JAG shop, sponsored a Regional Continuing Legal Education Conference at Fort Meade. The purpose of the conference was to provide a medium for presenting a continuing legal education program which would complement existing programs as well as allow junior officers of the JAG Corps to meet in a relaxed, yet productive, atmosphere. After a Council subcommittee outlined a tentative agenda, council members representing various fields of military law planned and implemented general presentations to the conference as a whole, as well as seminars …