We commend COL Douglas Simon’s, Making the UCMJ More Uniform, The Army Lawyer, No. 3, 2021, to the reader.
One goal of reforming state military justice systems is to establish consistency, uniformity, and some degree of alignment with the UCMJ. However, a primary barrier to fully achieving this goal is the current effort to modernize state military justice systems on a state-by-state basis. This is problematic because the fifty-four state and territorial jurisdictions that make up the National Guard have different levels of expertise, motives, and resources to support or adopt a uniform system, either in whole or in part. The divergence of state interests leads to non-uniformity that exposes important questions for states to consider. For instance, and to highlight a few notable and known areas: 1) what is the scope of jurisdiction over National Guard Service members;44 2) what is the applicability of the Military Rules of Evidence (MRE); 3) what is the applicability of the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM); and 4) what appellate courts and procedures (military or civilian) will apply?45 With state appellate courts, will they defer to military precedent when it may conflict with the respective state law or constitution? These important questions fueled the creation of a Military Justice Survey46 to assess the variability with the states’ military justice systems and, equally important, to understand the pace of progress with the adoption of the Model State Code that became available in 2005.
One goal of reforming state military justice systems is to establish consistency, uniformity, and some degree of alignment with the UCMJ. However, a primary barrier to fully achieving this goal is the current effort to modernize state military justice systems on a state-by-state basis. This is problematic because the fifty-four state and territorial jurisdictions that make up the National Guard have different levels of expertise, motives, and resources to support or adopt a uniform system, either in whole or in part. The divergence of state interests leads to non-uniformity that exposes important questions for states to consider. For instance, and to highlight a few notable and known areas: 1) what is the scope of jurisdiction over National Guard Service members;44 2) what is the applicability of the Military Rules of Evidence (MRE); 3) what is the applicability of the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM); and 4) what appellate courts and procedures (military or civilian) will apply?45 With state appellate courts, will they defer to military precedent when it may conflict with the respective state law or constitution? These important questions fueled the creation of a Military Justice Survey46 to assess the variability with the states’ military justice systems and, equally important, to understand the pace of progress with the adoption of the Model State Code that became available in 2005.
Prof. Frank Rosenblatt has a short piece at GMJR about state codes that do or do not follow the federal UCMJ, specifically referencing the use of Article 15, UCMJ.
Please note that much has changed in the UCMJ over the last few years. But it appears the state National Guard has yet to fully catch up. Please let us know if our links here are outdated because of recent legislative changes.
|
Ohio
Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Some changes may be coming in 2023, and a realignment with the UCMJ. The Wisconsin Examiner reports here on a state senate committee hearing on possible changes to the Wisconsin military code. Wyoming |
Puerto Rico
Guam
U. S. Virgin Islands
American Samoa (not available)
Northern Mariana Islands (not available)
Guam
U. S. Virgin Islands
American Samoa (not available)
Northern Mariana Islands (not available)
The Posse Comitatus Act and the National Guard.
* We might expect, that as reform continues of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, that the states will in some way follow suit. For example, N. Dakota merely refers you to the UCMJ and RCM of 2010.
Proudly powered by Weebly