LRM v. Kastenberg
2013 CAAF LEXIS 804
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- A1C LRM was the named victim in a court-martial charging A1C Nicholas Daniels with sexual offenses; Capt. Seth Dilworth appeared as special victims’ counsel for LRM to protect her rights under M.R.E. 412 and 513.
- At arraignment the military judge ruled LRM had no standing to be represented through counsel to make legal arguments in anticipated M.R.E. 412/513 evidentiary hearings, limiting her to factual participation only.
- LRM moved for reconsideration (seeking limited standing through counsel and production of related motions); the military judge denied reconsideration.
- LRM petitioned the Air Force CCA for a writ of mandamus; the CCA concluded it lacked jurisdiction and denied the petition en banc.
- The Air Force Judge Advocate General certified three issues to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (jurisdiction, denial of opportunity to be heard through counsel, and whether CAAF should issue mandamus).
- CAAF held it had jurisdiction, found the military judge erred in denying LRM the opportunity to be heard through counsel on legal issues under M.R.E. 412 and 513, but declined to grant mandamus, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCA had jurisdiction to hear LRM’s mandamus petition | LRM: CCA could review because the military judge’s ruling directly affects admissibility and therefore findings/sentence | CCA/Government: petition is not within CCA’s jurisdiction because it does not directly involve a finding or sentence | CAAF: CCA erred — subject-matter jurisdiction exists under All Writs Act/Article 66 when the ruling can affect evidence considered for findings/sentence |
| Whether LRM (as nonparty victim) has standing to be heard via counsel in M.R.E. 412/513 hearings | LRM: M.R.E. 412(c)(2) and 513(e)(2) guarantee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, which includes legal argument through counsel | Military judge/Government: allowing separate counsel risks duplicative advocacy and undermines judge impartiality and fair trial | CAAF: LRM has limited participant standing; victim/patient privilege-holders can contest disclosure and be heard through counsel though the right is not absolute |
| Whether the military judge erred by precluding legal argument by victim’s counsel before any evidentiary hearing | LRM: blanket preclusion is premature and inconsistent with the rules and precedent; judge must first exercise discretion under correct legal standard | Military judge: prophylactic ruling prevents appearance of partiality and duplicative advocacy | CAAF: Ruling was erroneous — judge must apply correct legal standards and may impose reasonable limits, but cannot categorically deny legal argument through counsel |
| Whether CAAF should issue a writ of mandamus directing the judge to allow counsel to argue and produce documents | LRM: mandamus appropriate to protect rights promptly | Government: relief premature; CAAF shouldn’t act where CCA didn’t rule on merits | CAAF: Denied mandamus — remanded for the military judge to act consistent with correct legal view and exercise discretion under R.C.M. 801 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (military courts may issue extraordinary writs under the All Writs Act)
- United States v. Curtin, 44 M.J. 439 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (definition of “case” under Article 67 includes final action by intermediate appellate court on extraordinary-relief petitions)
- Center for Constitutional Rights v. United States, 72 M.J. 126 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (harm must potentially affect findings and sentence to confer jurisdiction)
- United States v. Ellerbrock, 70 M.J. 314 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (reversal for erroneous M.R.E. 412 ruling affecting conviction)
- United States v. Redding, 11 M.J. 100 (C.M.A. 1981) (discussion of when interlocutory matters may be certifiable as a “case”)
- Carlson v. Smith, 43 M.J. 401 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (victims may be afforded opportunity, with counsel, to present argument on disclosure under M.R.E. 412)
- United States v. Wuterich, 67 M.J. 63 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (assumed standing for third parties in certain pretrial contexts)
- United States v. Leak, 61 M.J. 234 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (Article 67 review not necessarily foreclosed when lower court failed to reach certain legal issues)