Army Court of Criminal Appeals-updated

Opinion in Dial.

 However, we are ultimately more persuaded by the second basis which contends Congress determined that unanimous verdicts would unduly impede the efficiency of military operations. That is to say, deliberations towards unanimous verdicts are likely to take longer to achieve, thereby keeping participants from their military duties for reater periods of time. See Revision of the Articles of War, United States Senate, Subcommittee on Military Affairs, Statement of Brig. Gen. Enoch H. Crowder, United States Army, Judge Advocate General of the Army (1916), p. 27 [1916 Hearing]. Most importantly, when a unanimous verdict cannot be reached and a hung jury results, the command is faced with the prospect of either engineering a retrial or returning a service member with unresolved charges to its ranks.

Verdicts with a three-fourths majority, on the other hand, can presumably be reached more quickly on average and provide greater finality for both the command and the accused. Regardless of whether the military judge might agree with the result, striking this type of balance between the demands of due process and the need for military efficiency is one which rests within the discretion of Congress. See e.g, Mittendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25, 43 (1975) ( expediency was valid justification for abrogating the right to counsel at summary courts-martial). As such, we are satisfied that military efficiency provides a rational basis for the longstanding decision of Congress to treat military accused differently than their civilian counterparts with regard to unanimous verdicts. Therefore, there is no violation of
equal protection even if we were to find civilian and military defendants similarly situated. 

A verified commenter says,

The fear of a hung jury, as an impediment to military efficiency, is wrong. The issue is a unanimous verdict to convict, not a unanimous verdict to acquit. The court footnotes the issue and says they are unaware of any other court in the country where a single vote for acquittal results in an acquittal. Perhaps, but there is no other court that convicts on a non-unanimous vote. The equal protection analysis is a different ballgame for the accused who are convicted under Art. 134, Clause 3 offenses. That is not the issue here but it's the issue in other pending cases. The military efficiency rationale won't hold up in these cases.

Cheers, Phil Cave.