United States v. Nash
2012 CAAF LEXIS 406
| C.A.A.F. | 2012Background
- Accused Nash, a Marine Staff Sergeant, was tried by general court-martial in Okinawa for multiple offenses involving child victims; conviction included numerous indecent liberties/acts and possession of child pornography; sentence was 18 years, dishonorable discharge, and confinement to E-1 pay grade.
- CCA reversed findings and sentence, ordering rehearing, prompting certification of issues to this court.
- During voir dire, MGySgt S asked a question about rehabilitating pedophiles; defense sought removal for cause, government argued for curative instruction; military judge conducted limited voir dire of the panel.
- CCA held the military judge erred in not excusing MGySgt S for implied bias and affirmed bias concerns on de novo review; issues 1–2 framed around implied bias standard and liberal grant mandate.
- Court now addresses whether the military judge abused discretion by denying the challenge for actual bias, which forecloses need to address implied bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the military judge abused his discretion by not excusing for actual bias | Nash | Nash | Yes; actual bias established; judge erred in not removing MGySgt S. |
| Whether the lower court properly addressed implied bias under Bagstad framework | Nash | Nash | Not reached due to actual-bias ruling; implied-bias issue treated as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mack, 41 M.J. 51 (C.M.A. 1994) (impartial panel right governs bias review)
- United States v. Terry, 64 M.J. 295 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (totality-of-circumstances analysis for bias)
- United States v. Strand, 59 M.J. 455 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (implied-bias framework in voir dire)
- United States v. Armstrong, 54 M.J. 51 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (separate tests for actual vs implied bias; deferential review)
- Reynolds v. United States, 23 M.J. 292 (C.M.A. 1987) (actual-bias standard precludes defense instruction effectiveness)
- United States v. Daulton, 45 M.J. 212 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (deference to military judge on credibility assessments)
- United States v. White, 36 M.J. 284 (C.M.A. 1993) (great deference concept tied to bias determinations)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (presumption that jurors follow instructions)
- United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (jury instructions and open-mindedness)
- United States v. Holt, 33 M.J. 400 (C.M.A. 1991) (juror instruction compliance key to fair trial)