United States v. Brown
ACM 38864
| A.F.C.C.A. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Appellant (a commissioned officer) led a local "Crips"-style gang in Minot, ND; charged with multiple sexual assaults of minors, drug distribution, organizing a violent gang, prostitution-related offenses, threats, unlawful entry, and other offenses.
- Military judge convicted Appellant, sentenced to dismissal, 25 years confinement, and forfeitures; 60 days pretrial credit awarded; convening authority approved.
- Appellant appealed, raising legal/factual insufficiency for most convictions, Brady/discovery failures, ineffective assistance of counsel, unlawful pretrial punishment (Article 13), and post-trial delay.
- Appellate court reviewed legal and factual sufficiency de novo, considered discovery and Brady obligations, applied Strickland for IAC claims, and Article 13 and Moreno/Tardif standards for pretrial and post-trial delay relief.
- Court affirmed nearly all convictions, set aside and dismissed with prejudice the unlawful-entry conviction, found a limited Article 13 violation (inspection of confinement sleeping area) and awarded one week additional confinement credit, and denied other relief including for post-trial delay; court reassessed sentence to 24 years 9 months confinement plus dismissal and forfeitures.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & factual sufficiency of major convictions (sexual assaults, gang, prostitution, drugs, threats) | Most convictions rest on incredible witnesses and admissions in confinement; insufficiency except certain drug/threat counts | Evidence (victim testimony, witness corroboration, confinement recordings, texts) supports convictions beyond reasonable doubt | Court: almost all challenged findings legally and factually sufficient; sexual assaults of GB and FT, gang organization, prostitution, mushroom distribution, and threats affirmed |
| Unlawful entry of ML's home | No proof anyone entered ML's house or that Appellant directed/participated in any entry | Evidence of broken basement window, witness statements, and Appellant's recorded admission linking associate to robbery support entry as reasonably attributable to Appellant | Court: legal sufficiency present but factual sufficiency lacking; conviction SET ASIDE and Specification dismissed with prejudice |
| Brady/discovery violation re: AB DE's 2012 arrest (false information/shoplifting) | Government failed to disclose favorable impeaching record that would show pattern of falsehood and strengthen impeachment | Government had produced other impeachment and evidence; non-disclosure was negligent but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given extensive impeachment at trial | Court: Government violated disclosure rules but nondisclosure harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no relief warranted |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (cross-exam, failure to admit exhibits, investigation) | Counsel failed to exploit prior inconsistent statements, lost/withheld exculpatory files and recordings, and inadequately investigated readily available materials | Defense made strategic choices (avoiding introducing more damaging material, limiting harmful recordings/texts), conducted reasonable investigation; choices were tactical and reasonable | Court: No Strickland prejudice shown; counsel performance not deficient in a way that would change outcome |
| Article 13 pretrial punishment (confinement sleeping-area inspection) | Search/inspection of common sleeping area was punitive and excessive; sought sentencing credit | Government: search reasonably related to legitimate objective; no intent to punish; military judge already gave credit for mail screening delay but not for inspection | Court: Although intent to punish not shown, the conduct during inspection was sufficiently egregious to constitute punishment; awarded one week (7 days) additional confinement credit |
| Post-trial delay / Tardif relief | Seeks "meaningful relief" (day-for-day credit) for extended post-trial administrative and appellate delays | Government blames administrative causes and counsel requests; contends delays not so egregious to require relief; no prejudice shown under Moreno/Barker | Court: Delay present and partly indefensible but no Moreno due-process violation or Tardif extraordinary relief warranted; no sentence reduction for delay |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Walters, 58 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F.) (de novo review mandate for legal and factual sufficiency)
- United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A.) (legal and factual sufficiency standards)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (pretrial-detention conditions must be reasonably related to legitimate objectives)
- United States v. Mosby, 56 M.J. 309 (C.A.A.F.) (Article 13 burden and mixed question of fact and law)
- United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F.) (standards for reassessing sentence on appeal)
- United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.) (post-trial processing delay and Barker factors)
- United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F.) (Article 66(c) authority to grant relief for post-trial delay)
- United States v. Coleman, 72 M.J. 184 (C.A.A.F.) (disclosure categories and harmlessness standards under Article 46/Brady)