United States v. Christopher Stoltz
2013 WL 3215154
9th Cir.2013Background
- Stoltz, a Coast Guard enlisted sailor assigned to cutter Alex Haley, was observed in Oct 2008 viewing child pornography aboard the ship and later admitted possession to investigators.
- The cutter’s commanders declined court-martial to avoid precluding civilian prosecution; after seven months without civilian charges, they imposed nonjudicial punishment (NJP/Captain’s Mast) in May 2009.
- At the Captain’s Mast Stoltz admitted the charge, received reduction in rank, restriction, extra duty, and fines; he was never informed of, nor waived in writing, the statutory right to reject NJP and demand trial by court-martial (assuming the vessel exception did not apply).
- In April 2011 a federal grand jury indicted Stoltz for possession of child pornography based on the material found aboard the cutter; he moved to dismiss on double jeopardy and due process grounds.
- The district court granted dismissal; the government appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding double jeopardy did not bar prosecution and dismissal was not the appropriate remedy for any statutory/due-process violation in the NJP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Double Jeopardy bars civilian prosecution after NJP imposed without advising of right to demand court-martial | Stoltz: NJP imposed in violation of §815 deprived him of right to demand court-martial; prosecution now is barred because he could have been criminally charged previously | Gov: NJP is noncriminal; jeopardy attaches only at criminal trial (court-martial or civilian); Stoltz was never previously put in jeopardy | Held: Double jeopardy does not bar prosecution — Stoltz was never previously placed in jeopardy by a criminal trial |
| Whether the vessel exception to §815 applied (i.e., whether Stoltz had no right to reject NJP) | Stoltz: vessel exception did not apply; he should have been informed and allowed to demand court-martial | Gov: disputed; but appellate court assumed without deciding the exception did not apply | Held: Court assumes vessel exception did not apply but finds issue unnecessary to resolve double jeopardy question |
| Whether the statutory violation of failing to obtain a valid waiver implicates due process so as to dismiss the indictment | Stoltz: statutory failure = constitutional due process violation; remedy should bar civilian prosecution | Gov: Any due process injury occurred in the NJP proceeding and does not require dismissal of unrelated criminal charges; remedy should be tailored to NJP error | Held: Even assuming a due process violation, dismissal of the criminal indictment is not appropriate; remedy lies in military-record/correction avenues (e.g., BCMR) or vacating NJP |
| Proper remedy for an improper NJP imposed without waiver | Stoltz: seeks dismissal of criminal charge as remedy | Gov: remedy should correct NJP (vacatur, BCMR relief), not preclude criminal prosecution | Held: Remedy should be tailored to the NJP injury (vacate NJP, correct records); dismissal of criminal indictment is an inappropriate overbroad remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reveles, 660 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2011) (NJP is noncriminal; civilian prosecution not barred by prior NJP)
- Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333 (1907) (court-martial conviction precludes later civilian prosecution)
- Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976) (distinguishes courts-martial from NJP; courts-martial are judicial)
- Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (1975) (jeopardy attaches when trial begins—jury sworn or evidence heard in bench trial)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) (Double Jeopardy bars successive criminal punishments but not all punitive consequences)
- Fairchild v. Lehman, 814 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (waiver of right to demand court-martial must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent, and in writing)
- United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (1981) (remedies for constitutional violations must be tailored and not unnecessarily infringe competing interests)