United States v. Reveles
660 F.3d 1138
9th Cir.2011Background
- Reveles was charged with drunk driving on Kitsap Naval Base and received Navy nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under 10 U.S.C. § 815 (Article 15).
- NJP imposed sanctions including forfeiture of pay, pay reduction, extra duty, and restriction to ship for 45 days; maximum possible confinement is 30 days.
- Using the same conduct, Reveles was later charged in federal court under 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13 and RCW 46.61.502; he pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.
- A magistrate judge denied the motion; Reveles entered a conditional guilty plea in federal court and was sentenced to 24 hours detention and a $375 fine.
- The district court denied Reveles’ appeal of the magistrate judge’s denial; the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether NJP is criminal or civil and whether that categorization affects double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NJP is criminal or noncriminal in nature | Reveles contends NJP is criminal, thus barred if punished again. | Government argues NJP is noncriminal by statute and policy. | NJp is noncriminal in nature. |
| If noncriminal, whether NJP is so punitive as to transform into a criminal penalty | Reveles argues the severity and punitive traits convert NJP into criminal punishment. | Government argues NJP remains civil despite its penalties and history. | NJp is not transformed into a criminal penalty. |
| Does NJP’s noncriminal nature foreclose Double Jeopardy concern for subsequent federal prosecution | Reveles asserts double jeopardy should bar federal charges after NJP. | Government maintains no double jeopardy issue since NJP is noncriminal. | Double Jeopardy clause not implicated; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera v. Pugh, 194 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999) (test for criminal vs civil nature of punishment; focus on label and purpose)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (Supreme Court 1997) (multifactor test for transforming civil remedies into criminal penalties)
- Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court 1976) (summary court-martial not a criminal prosecution; NJP is between noncriminal and criminal)
- United States v. Gammons, 51 M.J. 169 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (military context; NJP distinguished from criminal court-martial)
- Wales v. United States, 14 Cl.Ct. 580 (1988) (nonjudicial punishment not a criminal proceeding in the Court of Claims context)
- Ivie v. State, 961 P.2d 945 (Wash. 1998) (state precedent recognizing noncriminal character of NJP-like penalties)