United States v. Bartlett
2008 CAAF LEXIS 833, 2008 WL 2678060, 66 M.J. 426 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A service secretary's regulation that categorically excludes certain classes of officers from court-martial service is invalid because it directly conflicts with Article 25 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which grants convening authorities broad discretion to select any commissioned officer based on specified statutory criteria.
Facts:
- Lieutenant Colonel David P. Bartlett Jr., an officer in the United States Army, was charged with unpremeditated murder.
- The general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA) at Fort Meade was tasked with selecting the court-martial members (the panel) for Bartlett's trial.
- A staff judge advocate advised the GCMCA that Army Regulation (AR) 27-10 prohibited him from selecting officers assigned to the Medical, Dental, Chaplain, Nurse, Veterinary, and Inspector General branches.
- Following this advice, the GCMCA intentionally excluded all officers from these specified branches when selecting the panel for Bartlett's court-martial.
- At the time of selection, there were eleven officers senior to Bartlett under the GCMCA's command who were members of the excluded branches and were therefore not considered for the panel.
- Bartlett was subsequently convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas and sentenced by the selected panel to a dismissal and twenty-five years of confinement.
Procedural Posture:
- At his general court-martial, Appellant Lieutenant Colonel Bartlett filed a motion for a new court-martial panel, arguing the exclusion of special branch officers was unlawful.
- The military judge at the trial court level denied the motion.
- Appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of unpremeditated murder and sentenced by the panel.
- The convening authority approved the findings and sentence.
- Bartlett (as Appellant) appealed the military judge's ruling to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals (the intermediate appellate court) affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (the highest military court) granted review of the panel selection issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Army regulation (AR 27-10) that categorically exempts officers from certain special branches from court-martial service unlawfully contradict Article 25 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which requires a convening authority to select members based on specified personal qualifications?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Stucky
Yes, the Army regulation unlawfully contradicts Article 25 of the UCMJ. The regulation impermissibly contravenes the provisions of Article 25 by narrowing the pool of eligible court-martial members established by Congress. Article 25 is a specific and detailed statute stating that 'Any commissioned officer on active duty is eligible to serve on all courts-martial,' and selections must be based on qualifications like age, education, and judicial temperament. The Secretary of the Army's regulation, issued under a general statutory authority to manage the Army, directly conflicts with this specific congressional mandate. Under established principles of statutory construction, a specific statute like Article 25 overrides a general one and any conflicting regulation. However, the error in this case was harmless because there was no improper motive, the members who did serve were statutorily qualified, and the panel was well-balanced. Therefore, the appellant was not materially prejudiced and is not entitled to a new sentencing hearing.
Concurring - Judge Erdmann
Yes, the regulation is impermissible and the error was harmless. I write separately to emphasize that while the majority correctly employed a case-specific harmless error analysis here, this should not foreclose the possible application of a structural-error analysis in future member-selection cases with different facts. The question of whether a structural-error approach could ever be appropriate was not fully briefed or argued, so the court's opinion should not be read as a definitive rejection of that framework for all future cases involving improper panel selection.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the hierarchy of authority within the military justice system, firmly establishing that specific congressional statutes like the UCMJ take precedence over general service regulations. By invalidating the Army's categorical exclusion of certain officer corps, the ruling broadens the pool of potential members for future courts-martial, reinforcing the convening authority's duty to select from all eligible officers. While the court found the error harmless in this instance, it set a precedent that such exclusions are unlawful. The decision also places the burden on the government to prove harmlessness for this type of systemic, non-administrative selection error, setting a standard for future challenges to panel composition.
