United States v. Campbell
2017 CCA LEXIS 321
| A.F.C.C.A. | 2017Background
- Appellant, an Air Force officer, was court-martialed by an officer-only panel and convicted of multiple specifications of wrongful drug use and solicitation under UCMJ Article 112a and 134, with an adjudged dismissal as sentence.
- AFOSI interrogated Appellant after uncovering text messages linking him to ecstasy; he confessed and allowed a phone search.
- The military judge denied suppression motions and the Government sought corroboration for Appellant’s confessions.
- Issues on appeal included suppression of statements, corroboration, suppression of cell phone evidence, a defense challenge for cause, and sentencing arguments.
- The court affirmed the findings and sentence, addressing voluntariness, waiver of rights, and trial-advocate conduct, and noted a separate concurrence by Senior Judge J. Brown.
- The case also involved a post-trial discussion on transcription accuracy and exhibits handling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of statements to AFOSI | Appellant contends the rights advisement and pre-advisement comments rendered statements involuntary or misdirected. | Appellant argues the advisement and waiver were ambiguous or coercive. | No material prejudice; waiver valid after totality of circumstances. |
| Corroboration of confession | Corroboration of Appellant’s admissions was insufficient. | Corroboration was adequate per record. | Corroboration adequate; Grostefon issue rejected as insufficient for relief. |
| Search of cell phone | Cell phone search lacked valid consent or probable cause. | Search under consent and warrant was reasonable; revocation did not bar copy-based evidence. | Search reasonable; military judge did not abuse discretion in refusing suppression. |
| Challenge for cause of Captain TA | Capt TA’s prior interactions with SA1 implied bias. | TA’s brief, limited contact did not show possible bias; liberal grant doctrine applies. | No basis to question TA’s fairness; challenge for cause denied. |
| Sentencing argument by trial counsel | ATC2’s comments improperly highlighted Appellant’s silence and lack of remorse. | Argument was within permissible zeal; any error harmless. | Any improper comments harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chatfield, 67 M.J. 432 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for suppression of confession)
- United States v. White, 69 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion and voluntariness analysis)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986) (two-step waiver test for rights waivers)
- Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979) (waiver and awareness in special-needs interrogations)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (ambiguity in invocation of counsel and questioning after invocation)
- United States v. Simpson, 54 M.J. 281 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (nature of Article 31(b) advisement)
- United States v. McKay, 26 C.M.R. 307 (C.M.A. 1968) (polygraph threats do not render confession involuntary)
- United States v. Delarosa, 67 M.J. 318 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (invocation questions and subsequent questioning)
- Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969) (use of false statements; permissible deception)
- United States v. Lutcza, Misc. Dkt. No. 2016-13, 2017 WL 430069 (AF CCA) (government-created copies and privacy expectation nuance)