United States v. Gooch
2011 CAAF LEXIS 111
| C.A.A.F. | 2011Background
- Appellant, an African American Lt Col, was convicted by general court-martial at Sheppard AFB of one count of making a false official statement, three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and one count of fraternization; sentence: dismissal and reprimand.
- The USAF Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed; this court granted review on three issues regarding panel selection, ineffective assistance of counsel, and waiver/invited error.
- Panel selection involved a pool created by the 82 TRW MJ section, screening by availability, rank, and potential knowledge of the case, and a master list ultimately sent to the convening authority (CA) with limited diversity from the base.
- A group decision at 2 AF supplemented the pool after initial lists were deemed insufficient; a total of ten officers (nine chosen by the CA) remained from Sheppard AFB, with supplements from Lackland and Maxwell AFBs.
- During sentencing, a panel member proposed reconsideration of Specification 2; the military judge ultimately considered dismissing it but did not, pending potential mistrial if members could not disregard it; the issue affected trial strategy and later ineffective-assistance analysis.
- The court held that the screening methodology violated Article 25, UCMJ, but found no material prejudice to substantial rights; the panel was fair and impartial, and the ineffective-assistance claim failed; third issue waived not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was panel selection under Article 25 inconsistent with law? | Gooch argued race-based exclusion and improper screening. | Gooch argued criteria outside Article 25 were improper and could affect representativeness. | Nonconstitutional error found; not prejudicial to substantial rights; panel fair. |
| Did counsel render ineffective assistance regarding Specification 2? | Defense counsel failed to move to dismiss Specification 2, risking mistrial. | Counsel made a reasonable tactical decision to avoid mistrial and preserve the existing panel. | No ineffective assistance; decisions did not fall measurably below standard. |
| Did waiver/invited error bar consideration of the ineffective-assistance claim? | Waiver doctrine should bar consideration. | Waiver/Public policy objections; not reached. | Not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dowty, 60 M.J. 163 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (guidance on panel selection and authoritiy's duties)
- United States v. Wiesen, 56 M.J. 172 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (availability as a screening factor in voir dire)
- United States v. Bartlett, 66 M.J. 426 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (categories of nonconstitutional error and harm standards)
- United States v. Santiago-Davila, 26 M.J. 380 (C.M.A. 1988) (Batson-derived analysis of peremptory challenges and discrimination)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection)
- United States v. Gooch, 69 M.J. 358 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (scrutinizing selection criteria and potential bias in panel makeup)