United States v. Biagase
1999 CAAF LEXIS 711, 50 M.J. 143, 1999 WL 212246 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an issue of unlawful command influence is raised, the government bears the burden of persuading the court beyond a reasonable doubt that either the predicate facts do not exist, the facts do not constitute unlawful command influence, or the command influence did not prejudice the proceedings or affect the findings and sentence.
Facts:
- Appellant Biagase, a Marine, was apprehended as a suspect in a series of robberies and beatings.
- He provided a detailed confession to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), admitting he conspired with fellow Marines to "jack people," which he defined as beating victims until they were seriously hurt and then robbing them.
- Following the confession, Biagase's company commander, Captain Fuhs, gave a copy to First Sergeant Bressler with instructions to "get the word out ... that this type of behavior will not be tolerated."
- Copies of the confession were circulated within Biagase's unit, and his superiors discussed the incident and condemned the conduct at unit formations.
- Captain Fuhs told his non-commissioned officers that "any Marine that would portray this type of behavior does not deserve to wear the uniform."
- The confession and the command's reaction were widely discussed among the approximately 90 members of Biagase's shop.
- A fellow Marine, LCpl Calloway, testified that he was initially reluctant to testify on Biagase's behalf because he feared his command would think he approved of the conduct and that it might negatively affect him.
Procedural Posture:
- Lance Corporal Biagase was tried by a general court-martial.
- At trial, the defense made a motion to dismiss all charges, arguing unlawful command influence.
- The military judge denied the motion, finding the government had met its burden to show no unlawful command influence existed, but took several remedial actions to protect the proceedings.
- The court-martial convicted Biagase of multiple offenses and sentenced him.
- The convening authority approved the findings and sentence.
- Biagase (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals (appellee is the United States) affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted review to decide the issue of unlawful command influence.
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 the pretrial dissemination of an accused's confession and public condemnation of his alleged conduct by his command constitute unlawful command influence that deprived the appellant of a fair trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Gierke
No, the command's actions did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial. While the command's pretrial condemnation of appellant’s conduct was improper and had the potential to deter witnesses, the military judge took forceful and effective remedial action that cured any potential prejudice. The judge publicly chastised the command members, removed the first sergeant from the rating chain of any witness, required written justification for any lower evaluations for witnesses, and offered to compel the testimony of any reluctant witness. Furthermore, several members of appellant's chain of command who knew him testified favorably on his behalf, and defense counsel could not identify any witness who was actually deterred from testifying. Therefore, the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the findings and sentence were untainted by unlawful command influence.
Concurring - Judge Sullivan
No, I concur in the result that the appellant was not deprived of a fair trial. Unlawful command influence clearly existed in this case, as the public, pretrial condemnation of an accused by his first sergeant is illegal. However, the appellant was not harmed beyond a reasonable doubt because the military judge was a 'hero' who took strong, decisive steps to ensure the jury and witness pools were not poisoned. The judge's remedial actions effectively neutralized the command's misguided actions and ensured appellant received a fair trial.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally establishing the standard of proof in unlawful command influence cases. It replaces the older, less stringent 'clear and positive evidence' standard with the constitutional 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. This decision clarifies that once the defense raises the issue, the government has the heavy burden to prove the absence of influence or the absence of prejudice. It also underscores the critical role of military judges in proactively taking remedial measures to cure potential command influence, demonstrating that such actions can preserve the fairness of a trial even in the face of improper command actions.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Biagase