United States v. Lofton
2011 CAAF LEXIS 140
| C.A.A.F. | 2011Background
- General court-martial; Appellant pled guilty to multiple offenses including absence without authority, dereliction, violation of Joint Ethics Regulation, and larceny counts; members convicted him of two specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman and two specifications of indecent assault; sentence included dismissal, confinement, forfeitures, and fines; convening authority approved but modestly suspended/waived portions of forfeitures; Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
- CMSgt RM, a target of the conduct, testified that Appellant made remarks and attempted non-work-related contact; CMSgt RM lost respect but was not personally offended; government relied on conduct unbecoming under Article 133, UCMJ, not on a separate sexual harassment standard.
- After trial, Ms. King, a victims’ advocate, described trial-related communications in an e-mail; defense sought post-trial discovery of text messages and a post-trial Article 39(a) hearing; convening authority’s decision not to order a post-trial hearing is at issue; the record authenticated later, and sequestration rules discussed for witnesses and trial spectators.
- The majority holds the conviction under Article 133 legally sufficient; the convening authority did not abuse discretion by denying a post-trial hearing; the sequestration and prejudice analyses apply, and no reversible error was found; opinion includes a dissent arguing the convening authority’s denial did prejudice Appellant and recommending a post-trial session.
- Procedural posture: defense sought post-trial hearing under Article 39(a) after defense discovered communications; trial record authenticated; issue framed as whether the convening authority abused discretion in denying post-trial hearing; court reviews for abuse of discretion and assesses prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of conduct unbecoming conviction | Lofton/Frmr: Brown supports correction; Appellant argues no hostility, etc. | Lofton emphasizes senior-officer context and lack of improper standard; government contends enduring disgrace. | Conviction legally sufficient |
| Abuse of discretion in denying post-trial Article 39(a) hearing | Defense asserts potential witness-collusion evidence; convening authority failed to consider | Record shows no clear evidence convening authority saw the request; discretionary denial | No abuse of discretion (majority) |
| Prejudice under sequestration rule (M.R.E. 615) and witness shaping | Text messages could have affected testimony; potential prejudice | Three witnesses testified independently; no evidence of shaping or collusion proven | No prejudice established |
| Standard for evaluating post-trial discovery and records | Meghdadi/Lofton guidance supports prompt post-trial inquiry; failure to order problematic | Record insufficient to show concrete evidence of coercion or influence | Not necessary to remand; record supports no post-trial hearing order |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harman, 68 M.J. 325 (C.A.A.F.2010) (legal-sufficiency standard (Jackson v. Virginia) applied)
- United States v. Schweitzer, 68 M.J. 133 (C.A.A.F.2009) (definitions of conduct unbecoming and compelling standard)
- United States v. Brown, 55 M.J. 375 (C.A.A.F.2001) (hostile-workplace standard; limits of civility code)
- United States v. Ruiz, 49 M.J. 340 (C.A.A.F.1998) (post-trial hearings abuse of discretion standard; unsworn assertions not enough)
- United States v. Meghdadi, 60 M.J. 438 (C.A.A.F.2005) (early post-trial evidence preservation and prompt inquiry)
- United States v. Lofton, 69 M.J. 392 (C.A.A.F.2011) (prejudice and post-trial hearing considerations under Article 39(a))
- United States v. Quintanilla, 63 M.J. 29 (C.A.A.F.2006) (prejudice analysis under sequestration rule; M.R.E. 615)
- United States v. Williams, 55 M.J. 302 (C.A.A.F.2001) (post-trial hearing timing and authority)
- Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F.2008) (jurisdictional limits for post-trial proceedings)