United States v. Captain DWAYNE M. WILLIAMS
ARMY 987654321
| A.C.C.A. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Appellant (Capt. Dwayne M. Williams) was convicted at a general court-martial of multiple sexual and related offenses based largely on images and a video from his thumb drive depicting apparently-unconscious women and other supporting testimony; sentence: dismissal and eight years confinement.
- Government introduced photographic and video evidence showing appellant engaging in sexual acts with 1LT AO and 1LT AP while they appeared unconscious; 1LT AP’s child is visible in some images and a video captured snoring.
- Military judge partially granted the government’s Mil. R. Evid. 413 motion to admit evidence of charged offenses as propensity evidence as to other charged offenses.
- Appellant testified; civilian defense counsel began direct examination but appeared impaired by back pain/medication, had a rambling, unfocused direct, and physically broke down; military defense counsel then continued without having sufficiently prepared appellant for his testimony.
- Court- of-criminal-appeals ordered affidavits from defense counsel and found both civilian and military defense counsel deficient in conducting/preparing direct examination but concluded appellant suffered no prejudice given the overwhelming government evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel during appellant's direct examination | Appellant: defense counsel performed deficiently in preparing/conducting direct; trial prejudice warrants relief | Government: counsel-presumed competent; deficiencies did not create reasonable probability of different outcome | Counsel were deficient, but appellant failed to show Strickland prejudice; no relief on this claim |
| Unreasonable multiplication of charges (UMC) — Specifications 5 & 6 of Charge I | Appellant: two aggravated-sexual-assault specs against same sleeping victim unreasonably multiply charges | Government: charging decision (no brief response) and military judge merged for sentencing | Court agreed the two specifications unreasonably exaggerated criminality; one specification (Spec. 6) set aside and dismissed |
| Use of propensity evidence (Mil. R. Evid. 413) re: charged offenses | Appellant (not raised): such use implicates constitutional error per later precedent (Hills) | Government: military judge admitted evidence; argued no improper effect on verdict | Court recognized error under Hills but found it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming evidence; convictions otherwise affirmed |
| Sentence reassessment after setting aside Spec. 6 | Appellant: error may have affected sentence | Government: record supports original sentence severity | Court reassessed and concluded the remaining sentence (dismissal + 8 yrs) would have been imposed; sentence affirmed and rights restored for dismissed spec. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (presumption of counsel competence; circumstances where prejudice is presumed)
- United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F.) (propensity evidence limits under Mil. R. Evid. 413/constitutional constraints)
- United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F.) (framework for sentence reassessment on appeal)
- United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F.) (analysis of unreasonable multiplication of charges)
- United States v. Akbar, 74 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F.) (discussion of Strickland prejudice standard in military context)