United States v. Gray
17-0525/AR
| C.A.A.F. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- Ronald A. Gray was convicted at general court-martial of multiple capital offenses (including premeditated murder, rape, robbery, forcible sodomy, burglary, and larceny) and sentenced to death; sentence approved in 1988.
- Military appellate review (Army Court of Military Review, this Court, and certiorari denial) concluded by 2001; President approved the death sentence in 2008 and an execution date was set but stayed by a federal district court; habeas litigation followed.
- Gray filed multiple petitions for writ of coram nobis in military courts; the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (en banc) considered a third petition in 2016–2017, dismissed one claim for lack of jurisdiction, and denied the rest.
- Gray petitioned this Court for extraordinary relief (writ of coram nobis) challenging, among other things, nondisclosure of confidential reports to the President and other alleged constitutional errors.
- This Court examined whether it has jurisdiction to issue coram nobis in a capital case that is final under the UCMJ and whether coram nobis was an available or proper remedy given alternative remedies and Gray’s confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant coram nobis after final UCMJ review and presidential approval | Gray: Court may issue coram nobis to address constitutional errors despite finality | Government: No statutory authority to grant coram nobis for capital case final under UCMJ; lacks jurisdiction | Court: No jurisdiction; dismisses petition with prejudice |
| Whether coram nobis is appropriate when alternative remedies exist | Gray: Coram nobis appropriate to remedy alleged secrecy and constitutional violations | Government: Habeas corpus in Article III courts is available and is the proper remedy | Court: Denied — habeas is an adequate alternative (citing Denedo) |
| Whether coram nobis is available to an applicant still in custody | Gray: Seeks coram nobis despite confinement | Government: Coram nobis unavailable to those in custody; must use habeas | Court: Coram nobis unavailable while petitioner is in confinement (citing Loving) |
| Whether the Army court erred in dismissing claim about undisclosed confidential reports to the President | Gray: Non‑disclosure of advisory/confidential reports violated due process and requires relief | Government: Military courts lack jurisdiction to grant coram nobis on that final‑case claim; process was final | Court: Did not reach merits; reiterated lack of jurisdiction over final capital‑case coram nobis claims |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (extraordinary writs cannot issue when adequate alternatives such as habeas exist)
- Loving v. United States, 62 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (coram nobis is unavailable to prisoners still in custody)
- Gray v. United States, 532 U.S. 919 (2001) (Supreme Court denial of certiorari in Gray’s direct appeal)
- United States v. Gray, 51 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (this Court’s prior direct-review decision affirming conviction and sentence)
- United States v. Gray, 37 M.J. 730 (A.C.M.R. 1992) (Army Court of Military Review’s earlier affirmation)