United States v. Cron
2014 CCA LEXIS 382
| A.F.C.C.A. | 2014Background
- Appellant SSgt Cron was convicted by general court-martial (capital referral) of conspiracy to commit premeditated murder, premeditated murder, and impeding an investigation; sentence: dishonorable discharge, confinement for life without parole, forfeiture of all pay, reduction to E-1.
- Victim TSgt Curtis Eccleston was Cron’s co-worker and Barbara Eccleston’s husband; Cron and Barbara plotted murder after her involvement with Eccleston.
- Cron proposed three plans to murder Eccleston; “plan A” involved tripping him with fishing line, and backups included drug-dealer exposure schemes.
- On 8 November 2011 a PTA converted the referral from capital to non-capital; Cron pled guilty to all charges under the PTA before a military judge alone.
- Military judge Col. Spath presided; Col. Christensen served as senior trial counsel and as appellate government counsel; Cron contests alleged conflicts of interest and PTA provisions as public policy violations.
- PTA terms included waivers of evidentiary objections, discovery, and funding of certain experts, and Cron agreed to testify in Barbara Eccleston’s case without his defense counsel present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the military judge should have recused due to friendship with trial counsel | Cron argues appearance of impropriety and bias; seeks recusal | Appellate review shows no disqualifying bias; friendship was professional | No plain error; no disqualification required |
| Whether trial defense counsel were ineffective for not voir direing the judge/lead counsel | Ineffective assistance due to potential appearance issues | Strategic choices after investigation; no deficient performance | No reversible ineffective-assistance error |
| Whether PTA terms coerced or rendered the proceeding an empty ritual | PTA coercion due to death-penalty risk | Agreement voluntary; waivers valid as defense-initiated in Rivera Mezzanatto line | PTA valid; no public-policy violation; no coercion sufficient to invalidate |
| Display of victim’s photograph at sentencing | Exhibit could unduly influence sentencing | Exhibit properly admitted and displayed with proper limiting instruction | No error; display did not substantially influence sentence |
| Trial counsel’s sentencing argument and disparaging remarks | Remarks improper and prejudicial | Remarks within bounds of zealous advocacy given record | Arguments within permissible bounds; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Butcher, 56 M.J. 87 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (impartiality and disqualification standard for military judges)
- United States v. Burton, 52 M.J. 223 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (impartiality standard in evaluating judge's conduct)
- United States v. Quintanilla, 56 M.J. 37 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (presumption of impartiality and bias standards)
- United States v. Gooch, 69 M.J. 353 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (three-part Strickland ineffective-assistance framework)
- United States v. Rivera, 46 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (public policy considerations in pretrial agreements)