United States v. Bradley
2012 CAAF LEXIS 205
| C.A.A.F. | 2012Background
- Bradley and three sailors were involved in a drive-by shooting; Bradley discharged a firearm at a vehicle with three sailors.
- Bradley faced multiple UCMJ charges and entered a pretrial immunity agreement; he provided immunized statements during interviews.
- Bradley withdrew from the pretrial agreement after testimony against a co-accused; trial counsel remained privy to immunized statements, prompting a Kastigar-related motion.
- Bradley pled guilty unconditionally to specified offenses after the military judge denied disqualification of trial counsel.
- The first CCA opinion held the motion to disqualify was not waived and criticized the judge’s disqualification ruling; it suggested Bradley’s pleas may have been improvident if misapprehension existed.
- On remand, the CCA found it bound by this Court’s waiver ruling and rejected ineffective assistance as non-prejudicial; Bradley II addressed waiver and IAC under Strickland.
- The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed that the CCA was bound by prior conclusions and that any deficient performance did not prejudice the plea outcome; the law-of-the-case issue was rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the CCAs bound by this Court's remand decision on waiver? | Bradley argued the CCA should follow this Court's remand holding binding on waiver. | USA acknowledges guidance but disputes scope of binding effect post-remand. | CCA properly bound by the Court's remand conclusions. |
| Did Bradley receive ineffective assistance of counsel for preservation advice? | Bradley contends counsel's advice preserved the disqualification issue, causing IAC. | USA asserts no deficient performance under Strickland; no prejudice shown. | No deficient performance or prejudice established. |
| Did law-of-the-case affect prejudice analysis for IAC? | Bradley argues prevailing law would show prejudice if waiver affected plea. | USA maintains law-of-the-case does not resolve the prejudice inquiry here. | Law-of-the-case did not resolve prejudice; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bradley, 68 M.J. 279 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (central as the controlling pre- and remand decision on waiver and improvidence)
- Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (plea improvidence requires substantial basis)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (ineffective-assistance standard in guilty plea contexts)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (advisement on consequences can render a plea nonvoluntary if deficient)
- Loving v. United States, 68 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (prejudice analysis in IAC for guilty pleas guidance)
- Premo v. Moore, 131 S. Ct. 733 (2011) (rational decision to plead guilty under plea bargains when seeking evidence access)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (prejudice standard requires substantial likelihood of different outcome)
- Allbery, 44 M.J. 226 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (mandate effect and remand scope in binding precedent)
- Sprague v. Ticonic Nat’l Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (1939) (mandate control and remand scope principles)