United States v. Peters
2015 CAAF LEXIS 143
| C.A.A.F. | 2015Background
- Appellant was court-martialed and convicted of drunken operation of a vehicle causing injury, two specifications of involuntary manslaughter, and aggravated assault under UCMJ Article 111, with a ten-year confinement sentence and other punitive actions.
- Confinement was reduced by the convening authority to nine years and six months, and the findings and sentence were affirmed by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The issue on review concerns whether the military judge abused his discretion denying an implied bias challenge to LTC Cook, a court-martial panel member.
- LTC Cook disclosed a professional relationship with CPT Krupa, the trial counsel, including prior and ongoing legal advice and communications the night before voir dire.
- Cook also disclosed a relationship with COL Kolasheski, the brigade commander who forwarded the charges, as well as that MAJ Krattiger, the investigating officer, was his XO.
- Appellant objected to Cook’s panel membership; the military judge denied the challenge, relying on Cook’s demeanor rather than the specific grounds of challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the military judge abused discretion denying implied bias | Appellant asserts implied bias due to qualitative bond with trial counsel | Cook’s professional ties do not force disqualification; no per se bias | Military judge abused discretion; reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rome, 47 M.J. 467 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (liberal grant mandate and implied bias framework)
- United States v. Downing, 56 M.J. 419 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (requires on-record analysis of implied bias; deference attenuates with lack of analysis)
- United States v. Clay, 64 M.J. 274 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (liberal grant mandate; early addressing of potential issues)
- United States v. Miles, 58 M.J. 192 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (demeanor vs. credibility in implied bias context)
- United States v. Richardson, 61 M.J. 113 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (professional relationships not per se disqualifying; voir dire importance)
- United States v. Bagstad, 68 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (requires on-record analysis of grounds for implied bias)
- United States v. Strand, 59 M.J. 455 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (totality of circumstances in implied bias assessment)
- United States v. Hamilton, 41 M.J. 22 (C.M.A. 1994) (recognizes no per se disqualification for professional contacts)
- United States v. Wiesen, 56 M.J. 172 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (objective standard for implied bias)