United States v. Givens
21-0086/AR
| C.A.A.F. | Apr 5, 2022Background
- Specialist Ronald C. Givens was tried by general court-martial on multiple charges (assault consummated by a battery, false official statement, larceny, communicating a threat, and child endangerment); Army CCA later dismissed child endangerment for legal insufficiency.
- The convening process began in April–June 2018; charges were amended after an Article 32 in August–October 2018; arraignment and plea entry occurred in November 2018; a pretrial order set a written motions deadline of December 4, 2018.
- Two days before trial (Feb. 24, 2019), defense filed a motion to dismiss and to disqualify trial counsel, alleging defective preferral and accusatory unlawful command influence (UCI) based on a newly submitted sworn affidavit by the company commander claiming he was coerced into preferring charges.
- The military judge denied the motion as untimely under R.C.M. 905(b)(1) (defects in preferral must be raised before pleas) and found no "good cause" to excuse waiver under R.C.M. 905(e).
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed: (1) defective-preferral/UCI objections asserting accusatory defects were waived because they were not raised prior to pleas; and (2) the military judge did not abuse his discretion in finding no good cause for the late filing.
- Chief Judge Ohlson (joined by Senior Judge Effron) dissented, arguing accusatory UCI can be raised any time before adjournment of trial and that the military judge failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into good cause, warranting remand for further factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a claim of defective preferral based on accusatory UCI must be raised before entry of pleas | The Government: R.C.M. 905(b)(1) and precedent (Hamilton, Richter, Drayton) require such preferral defects be raised prior to pleas; failure waives the claim | Givens: An accusatory UCI claim may be timely if raised at trial (before adjournment); framing it as UCI should not be subject to the pre-plea deadline | CAAF: Agrees with Government—claims asserting defective preferral based on UCI are governed by R.C.M. 905(b)(1) and were waived when not raised before pleas |
| Whether the military judge abused discretion in refusing to excuse waiver for "good cause" under R.C.M. 905(e) | The Government: Defense failed to show good cause; facts were discoverable earlier and defense did not explain delay | Givens: Defense promptly filed upon learning of new evidence (company commander affidavit); Government previously denied knowledge of UCI evidence, supporting good cause | CAAF: No abuse of discretion—military judge reasonably concluded the defense could have discovered the facts earlier and failed to meet the burden to justify relief |
| Whether the military judge had a duty to probe and adjudicate the UCI motion on the merits when presented during trial | The Government: Proper to enforce R.C.M. timing and deny untimely motions absent good cause | Givens: Judge is the "last sentinel" against UCI and should have inquired further into good cause and adjudicated the claim; government disclosures misled defense | Held: Majority rejects defendant's view; judge did not err procedurally or abuse discretion. Dissent says judge erred and would remand for DuBay factfinding |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hamilton, 41 M.J. 32 (C.M.A. 1994) (claims of defective preferral based on coercion/UCI must be raised at trial and may be waived)
- United States v. Jameson, 65 M.J. 160 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (standard for "good cause" relief from waiver; lack of diligence defeats good cause)
- United States v. Drayton, 45 M.J. 180 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (facts known before trial = waiver of coerced-preferral claim)
- United States v. Richter, 51 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (accusatory UCI/preferral defects waived if not raised at trial)
- United States v. Brown, 45 M.J. 389 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (failure to raise accusatory command-influence at trial waives the issue)
- United States v. Thomas, 22 M.J. 388 (C.M.A. 1986) (UCI described as the "mortal enemy" of military justice; importance of guarding against UCI)
- United States v. Biagase, 50 M.J. 143 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (military judge's duty to protect against unlawful command influence)