Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals

United States v. Edwards, presents an interesting resolution of a sentence reassessment.

After this court affirmed the findings and sentence, United States v. Edwards, No. ACM 39696, 2021 CCA LEXIS 106 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 10 Mar. 2021) (unpub. op), the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) granted Appellant’s petition for review of the following issue:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING THE VICTIM TO PRESENT AS AN IMPACT STATEMENT A VIDEO—PRODUCED BY THE TRIAL COUNSEL—THAT INCLUDED PHOTOS AND BACKGROUND MUSIC United States v. Edwards, 81 M.J. 424 (C.A.A.F. 2021) (order).

The CAAF concluded that the military judge abused his discretion by allowing the video as an unsworn victim impact statement. United States v. Edwards, 82 M.J. 239, 241 (C.A.A.F. 2022). The CAAF found that “the materiality and high quality of the video—as illustrated by the Government’s use of the video during sentencing—prevent [the CAAF] from concluding that the Government has met its burden of establishing that the video did not substantially influence Appellant’s sentence.” Id. at 248. Accordingly, the CAAF affirmed the findings, but our decision was reversed with respect to the sentence. Id. at 241. The CAAF vacated Appellant’s sentence and returned the record to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to this court. Id. The remand stated that this court may “either reassess the sentence based on the affirmed findings or order a sentence rehearing.” Id.

On remand, counsel for both parties filed a consent motion for leave to file joint brief, which this court granted on 17 November 2022. The joint brief reflects the parties’ agreement to request that this court reassess Appellant’s adjudged sentence. The parties concur that, absent the error involved in Appellant’s court-martial, the sentence adjudged would have been at least a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 30 years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and RIR.