United States v. Cooley
2016 CAAF LEXIS 351
C.A.A.F.2016Background
- Cooley (Coast Guard) confessed July 20, 2012 to soliciting and possessing sexually explicit images of minors; seized devices and multiple investigations followed. He was placed in pretrial confinement intermittently and continuously from December 20, 2012, totaling 289 days.
- The convening authority referred an initial set of charges ("First Charges") in March 2013 (Cooley I); a military judge dismissed those First Charges without prejudice on May 23, 2013 for violating R.C.M. 707 (arraignment defect and >120 days in confinement).
- Government re-preferred substantially the same First Charges (Cooley II) and then, on June 14, 2013, re-referred the First Charges together with several New Charges (including a child‑pornography specification based on images CGIS analyzed in March 2013).
- The Coast Guard CCA (CGCCA) dismissed the First Charges with prejudice under Article 10, UCMJ (finding pretrial confinement itself constituted clear prejudice) and dismissed the child‑pornography New Charge without prejudice under R.C.M. 707 (finding the Government had ‘‘substantial information’’ by March 2013).
- This Court reviewed whether (1) pretrial confinement is per se prejudice under Article 10 and (2) the Government exercised reasonable diligence under the Barker/Birge factors for the offenses for which Cooley was actually confined (the First Charges). The Court also addressed whether Article 10 applied to the child‑pornography charge for which Cooley was not confined.
Issues
| Issue | Appellee (Government) Argues | Appellant (Cooley) Argues | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pretrial confinement is per se prejudice for Article 10 speedy‑trial analysis | Confinement alone supports finding prejudice (as CGCCA held) | Confinement alone is insufficient; prejudice must be assessed under Barker factors | Reversed CGCCA: confinement is not per se prejudice; must assess prejudice within Barker framework |
| Whether Government exercised reasonable diligence under Article 10 (Barker/Birge) for charges tied to confinement (First Charges) | Government acted with reasonable diligence given complexity, docket, ongoing investigation and absence of bad faith | Government delayed unreasonably after R.C.M. 707 dismissal and ignored multiple speedy‑trial demands | Held violation of Article 10 as to First Charges: delay (289 days), reasons, repeated demands, and limited prejudice (expert assistance) weigh for Cooley |
| Whether Article 10 applies to the child‑pornography New Charge (not the basis for his confinement) | Article 10 applies when Government had substantial information; dismissal without prejudice under R.C.M. 707 should not preclude Article 10 relief | Article 10 applies only to charges connected to arrest/confinement; unrelated charges governed by R.C.M. 707 | Article 10 does not apply to charges for which accused was not arrested or confined; CGCCA’s R.C.M. 707 dismissal not certified to this Court and remains law of the case where applicable |
| Whether the "substantial information" rule (triggering speedy‑trial accountability when Government possessed substantial information) controls over R.C.M. 707 | (Implicit) substantial information rule supports earlier trigger | R.C.M. 707 and Article 10 framework control; substantial‑information rule should not extend Article 10 to unrelated charges | Overruled the pre‑R.C.M. 707 "substantial information" rule for Article 10 purposes; R.C.M. 707 controls triggers for non‑confined charges |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (establishes four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing test)
- United States v. Birge, 52 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (adopts Barker analysis for Article 10 review)
- United States v. Mizgala, 61 M.J. 122 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (Article 10 requires Government to show reasonable diligence)
- United States v. Wilder, 75 M.J. 135 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (R.C.M. 707 trigger is earliest listed action; relevant to preferral timing)
- United States v. Johnson, 1 M.J. 101 (C.M.A. 1975) (pre‑R.C.M. 707 "substantial information" rule; Court overruled that rule here)
- United States v. Cossio, 64 M.J. 254 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (complexity of investigation can justify delay but Government must show particularized reasons)
- United States v. Kossman, 38 M.J. 258 (C.M.A. 1993) (discusses interplay of R.C.M. 707 and Article 10; reasonable‑diligence standard)