National Institute of Military Justice
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate

CAAFlog

Military cases and habeas corpus

4/1/2023

 

Brown v. Kendall, et al

Brown is a decision from a district court in Maryland on a military habeas corpus petition (2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52797). (United States v. Brown (AFCCA).)
Jamie L. Brown filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the validity of his court-martial by the United States Air Force (the "Air Force"). ECF 1 & 4. The respondents, Frank Kendall, Secretary of the Air Force, and Thomas Shubert, President of the Air Force Clemency & Parole Board, move to dismiss the petition. ECF 16. The motion is fully briefed. ECF 18 & 21. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the following reasons, the petition is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Brown is a useful review of how military habeas corpus petitions might be disposed of. Brown was on parole when he filed his petition, but was released from parole three days after the filing.

1. Brown continues the principle that the petitioner does not have to be confined to seek habeas corpus.

2. Brown restates the principle that it is the petitioner's status at the time of filing that gives jurisdiction.

3. Brown holds that it is the president of the Clemency & Parole Board (not the Service secretary) who is the "immediate custodian" for habeas purposes for those on parole. If the person is still confined then it is the commander or commanding officer of the confinement facility who holds the body.
Brown claims that the military judge overseeing the court-martial panel in his case violated his due process rights by (1) permitting the panel to return findings by less than a unanimous verdict; (2) instructing the panel as to uncharged theories of criminal liability; and (3) excluding potentially exculpatory evidence and refusing to permit Brown to cross examine a witness based on that evidence. The respondents argue that Brown's claims were fully and fairly considered by the military courts.
The district court judge follows the 10th Circuit jurisprudence because (in a footnote)
Courts "consistently justify adoption of the Tenth Circuit's standard on the basis that the United States Disciplinary Barracks are located at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, which has enabled the Tenth Circuit to develop expertise and a significant body of case law in this area." Anderson v. Bolster, No. 1:19cv75 (LO/TCB), 2020 WL 5097516, at *4 n.4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 27, 2020), aff'd, No. 20-7707, 2022 WL 4998074 (4th Cir. Oct. 4, 2022) (unpublished).
Ultimately the district court judge determined that all the claims had been fully and fairly considered and not subject to redetermination in a habeas petition.

​In response to an earlier post, Rob Feldmeier (who represented Brown at AFCCA and before the district court) noted that "If the claim is jurisdictional, the full and fair standard doesn't apply - the standard of review is de novo."
Brown attempts to sidestep [this] problem by arguing that his Ramos claim is a jurisdictional claim and not subject to the Burns full-and-fair-consideration analysis. He cites Larrabee v. Braithwaite, 502 F. Supp. 3d 322, 327 (D.D.C. 2020), rev'd sub nom. Larrabee v. Del Toro, 45 F.4th 81 (D.C. Cir. 2022), for the proposition that a court-martial is void if the statute creating it is unconstitutional and void "because courts-martial have no inherent jurisdiction or independent existence." ECF 18, at 2-3. He contends that the court-martial in his case is void because "the portion of the UCMJ authorizing non-unanimous panel verdicts is unconstitutional and void" under Ramos. Id. In short, he reads Larrabee as rendering any constitutional challenge to the statutory procedures of the military courts a jurisdictional claim. But Larrabee did not say that.
. . . 
Brown's 
Ramos claim, conversely, attacks the statutory provision permitting non-unanimous panel decisions. He does not attack a jurisdictional statute. Nor does he question that the court-martial proceedings here were "convened and constituted in conformity with the applicable statutes[.]" See Willenbring, 559 F.3d at 231. Thus, Brown's Ramos claim is not jurisdictional and is subject to the Burns analysis.
Within the decision the district court judge hews to
the Tenth Circuit's recent and repeated affirmations that full and fair consideration is given when a claim is adequately and thoroughly briefed, even if the military courts summarily disposed of the claim.
Donald G Rehkopf, Jr.
4/6/2023 11:14:12

Use extreme CAUTION when relying on this decision. Much of its analysis is either simply wrong or greatly flawed. E.g., its reliance on Burns v. Wilson is a prime example. Whether or not Burns has any modern precedential value, is dubious. First, it was a pre-UCMJ case tried (and appealed) under the former Articles of War. Second, it was a plurality decision. Third, it was a classic "rush to judgment" case as Justice Franfurter's separate opinion notes some of the problems, e.g., only one copy of the Record was provided to the Court and Frankfurter did not have the opportunity to read it prior to the Court's decision, and urged re-argument -- especially since it was a racially infused death penalty case. Finally, much of the precedent relied upon by the plurality has long since been abrogated, starting with the enactment of the UCMJ, and later SCOTUS decisions such as Boumediene.

Furthermore, while accurate in a numerical sense, much of military habeas jurisprudence does come from the Tenth Circuit, home to the USDB. But, with a caveat or two: most of the military habeas cases litigated there are pro se cases and thus poorly litigated. Thus, there are cases literally all over the legal spectrum to be found (and cherry-picked), The correct standard in the Tenth Circuit was established in Dodson v. Zelez, 917 F.2d 1250,
1252-53 (10th Cir. 1990), That followed the precedents of the DC and Fifth Circuits, ignored by the decision here in Brown.

The leading case on "Full and Fair" consideration is Kauffman v. Sec’y of the Air Force, 415 F.2d 991 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1013 (1970), Notably, in the almost 55 years since Kauffman was decided, neither that Court, SCOTUS, or Congress has done anything to abrogate or overrule it.


Comments are closed.
    Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
    Picture
    Co-editors:
    Phil Cave
    Brenner Fissell
    Links

    ​SCOTUS
    CAAF

    -Daily Journal
    -2025 Ops
    ​
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    JRAP
    JRTP


    UCMJ

    Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.)
    ​
    ​
    MCM 2024
    ​
    MCM 2023

    MCM 2019
    MCM 2016
    MCM 2012
    MCM 1995

    ​
    UMCJ History

    Global Reform
    Army Lawyer
    JAG Reporter
    ​
    Army Crim. L. Deskbook

    J. App. Prac. & Pro.

    Dockets

    Air Force

    Art. 32.
    Trial.

    Army

    Art. 32.
    Trial.

    Coast Guard

    Art. 32.
    Trial.
    ​"Records."

    Navy-Marine Corps

    Art. 32.
    Trial.
    "Records."

    Archives

    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022

    Categories

    All
    ByTheNumbers
    Case2Watch
    CrimLaw
    Evidence
    Fed. Cts.
    Habeas Cases
    IHL/LOAC
    Legislation
    MilJust Transparency
    NewsOWeird
    Opinions ACCA
    Opinions-ACCA
    Opinions AFCCA
    Opinions CAAF
    Opinions CGCCA
    Opinions NMCCA
    Readings
    Sentenciing
    Sex Off. Reg.
    Sexual Assault
    Supreme Court
    Unanimous Verdicts

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly