United States v. Boyce
2017 CAAF LEXIS 494
| C.A.A.F. | 2017Background
- Lt Gen Craig A. Franklin, Third Air Force commander and general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA), previously set aside findings/sentence in Wilkerson (sexual‑assault case), provoking congressional/media criticism.
- After Deborah Lee James became Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff told Franklin she had “lost confidence” and gave him the choice to retire or be removed; Franklin promptly submitted his retirement request that would reduce his rank and retirement pay.
- On the same day the Chief of Staff called, Franklin received the referral package for Appellant’s sexual‑assault case and, days later, referred the case to general court‑martial. Franklin retired shortly thereafter.
- Defense moved to dismiss for unlawful command influence (UCI); the military judge found some evidence of UCI but concluded beyond a reasonable doubt there was no UCI or appearance of UCI affecting this case. The Air Force CCA affirmed.
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (majority) held there was no actual UCI (no individualized prejudice) but found an appearance of UCI: an objective, fully informed observer would harbor significant doubt about fairness given the Secretary/Chief of Staff conduct, Franklin’s vulnerability to personnel action, and the failure to take prophylactic steps.
- Remedy: the Court reversed findings and sentence without prejudice and authorized a rehearing; two judges dissented (arguing waiver, lack of actual UCI, and absence of prejudice to the accused).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether civilian/military leaders’ actions created unlawful command influence (actual) over referral | Boyce: Secretary/CSAF conduct coerced or influenced Franklin’s referral decision | Gov: No evidence those leaders affected Franklin’s decision; no knowledge/intent; Franklin insisted independence | Held: No actual UCI — Appellant failed to show individualized prejudice; referral supported by evidence/recommendations |
| Whether leaders’ conduct created appearance of unlawful command influence | Boyce: Even absent actual influence, the Secretary/CSAF actions + Franklin’s vulnerability and lack of prophylaxis created an appearance of UCI | Gov: Appearance requires effect, knowledge, or intent; military judge found Franklin “bombproof” and impartial | Held: Yes — an objective, disinterested, fully informed observer would harbor significant doubt; appearance of UCI established |
| Appropriate remedy when appearance (but not actual) UCI found | Boyce: Appearance undermines public confidence; reversal without prejudice and rehearing necessary | Gov: Article 59(a) requires prejudice to accused; reversal is unwarranted when no individual prejudice and referral would likely be same | Held: Reversed findings and sentence without prejudice and authorized rehearing (majority). Dissent argued Article 59(a) and waiver principles counseled no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thomas, 22 M.J. 388 (C.M.A. 1986) (UCI called "the mortal enemy of military justice")
- United States v. Lewis, 63 M.J. 406 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (articulated objective test for appearance of UCI)
- United States v. Stoneman, 67 M.J. 36 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (appearance of UCI judged objectively; public perception focus)
- United States v. Salyer, 72 M.J. 415 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (burden shifts: appellant shows some evidence, government must rebut beyond reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Biagase, 50 M.J. 143 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that UCI did not affect proceedings)
- United States v. Calhoun, 49 M.J. 485 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (use of objective, disinterested observer standard in appearance analyses)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (federal courts’ interest in proceedings appearing fair)