United States v. Meakin
ACM 38968
| A.F.C.C.A. | Jul 14, 2017Background
- Appellant, a commissioned officer, engaged in online chats and emails with multiple interlocutors discussing graphic sexual abuse of children; AFOSI and DHS investigation led to federal and military charges.
- He pleaded guilty in federal court to knowing access of child pornography (Feb 2015) and was later tried by general court-martial (Aug 2015) for conduct unbecoming an officer (Article 133); convicted of two charges and 17 specifications and sentenced to dismissal, 20 months confinement, and forfeitures.
- Appellant began serving military confinement immediately; after the court-martial he was transferred under a federal writ and spent time in several non-military facilities before arriving at a federal detention center (CADF) where some confinement overlapped with foreign nationals.
- Defense sought continuances pretrial to obtain a federal presentence report (PIRG); the military judge denied the request because the report did not yet exist and disclosure obligations were not triggered.
- Defense moved to dismiss for unreasonable multiplication of charges; the military judge denied the motion, finding each specification involved distinct conversations with different interlocutors.
- Post-trial, defense alleged unlawful post-trial confinement conditions (housing with foreign nationals) in clemency; the SJA addendum erroneously stated the defense raised no legal error. The Court found the addendum defective and remanded for new post-trial processing, and identified an Article 12 issue (confinement with foreign nationals) meriting consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal and factual sufficiency of Article 133 convictions | Convictions insufficient: private, anonymous, consensual online "fantasies" not criminal; Hartwig heightened standard applies | Speech was indecent/obscene under Moore and unprotected; content tended to dishonor officer status | Affirmed convictions: evidence legally and factually sufficient; speech indecent and conduct unbecoming |
| Denial of continuance to obtain federal presentence report (PIRG) | Denial prejudiced mitigation and ability to raise double jeopardy/related defenses | PIRG did not exist at the time; defense had notice and access to other mitigation; delay speculative | Denial not an abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown |
| Motion to dismiss for unreasonable multiplication of charges | Multiple specifications were a continuous course of conduct and exaggerate criminality/punitive exposure | Each specification alleged separate conversations with different screen names, distinct acts | Denial not an abuse of discretion; specifications were separate and not unreasonably multiplied |
| SJAR addendum and Article 12 (confinement with foreign nationals) | Addendum incorrectly stated no legal error; alleged Article 12 violations and Eighth Amendment concerns merited SJA comment and CA consideration | Government contended post-trial confinement issues were clemency matters and not legal error; or transitory so no action required | Addendum defective for failing to address asserted legal error; appellate court remanded for new post-trial processing and directed CA be advised of Article 12 issue |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F.) (standard for appellate review of legal and factual sufficiency)
- United States v. Humpherys, 57 M.J. 83 (C.A.A.F.) (legal sufficiency test)
- United States v. Moore, 38 M.J. 490 (C.M.A.) (indecent/obscene speech not protected for Article 133 violations)
- United States v. Hartwig, 39 M.J. 125 (C.M.A.) (private speech and the clear-and-present-danger test under Article 133)
- United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F.) (factors for unreasonable multiplication of charges)
- United States v. McPherson, 73 M.J. 393 (C.A.A.F.) (Article 12—confinement with foreign nationals and exhaustion of remedies)
- United States v. Green, 44 M.J. 93 (C.A.A.F.) (appellate review of SJAR errors and prejudice inquiry)
- United States v. Hill, 27 M.J. 293 (C.M.A.) (SJA response required when legal error raised in clemency)