United States v. Shea
2017 CAAF LEXIS 518
| C.A.A.F. | 2017Background
- Patrick Shea, an Airman, was convicted by a special court-martial of multiple offenses including disobeying an officer and several assaults; sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement, reduction, and forfeitures.
- The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) panel (Allred, Teller, Hecker) set aside one specification and reassessed the sentence to the military-judge-adjudged terms.
- This Court (CAAF) reviewed the AFCCA decision, affirmed the findings, reversed the sentence reassessment, and remanded for a new reassessment based on the affirmed findings.
- On remand the AFCCA issued a special panel order replacing Judge Hecker with Judge Zimmerman (panel became Allred, Teller, Zimmerman); Shea objected and argued he was entitled to the original panel.
- The Government raised concerns in another matter about Judge Hecker’s dual-role assignment (appellate judge and IMA to AFLOA/JAJM); AFCCA denied recusal in that case but later Hecker was not placed on Shea’s remand panel.
- Shea also alleged apparent unlawful command influence from the Judge Advocate General’s assignment of Hecker to non-judicial duties; AFCCA reassessed and affirmed the convening authority’s approved sentence, and this Court reviewed the panel-assignment and UCI claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shea) | Defendant's Argument (Government/AFCCA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an accused has a right to have the same appellate judges decide a case on remand | Shea: Remand panels must include the same judges; Congress intended consistency and prior cases support constant membership where possible | AFCCA/Gov: No statutory or regulatory right to a particular panel; chief judge may assign panels for administrative reasons | Court: No right exists; reassignment on remand was permissible under Article 66 and court rules |
| Whether Judge Hecker's removal gave "some evidence" of apparent unlawful command influence | Shea: Removal following JAG assignment of non-judicial duties shows Government caused removal and raises significant doubt about fairness | AFCCA/Gov: JAG authority to assign IMAs and clerk/Chief Judge assignment power are lawful; no evidence of a scheme to remove Hecker | Court: Shea failed to show "some evidence" of apparent UCI; allegations were speculative ("command influence in the air") and insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. LaBella, 75 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (scope of CCA authority under Article 66)
- United States v. Vines, 15 M.J. 247 (C.M.A. 1983) (chief judge has broad administrative authority to assign and reassign panels)
- United States v. Wheeler, 20 C.M.A. 595 (1971) (discussion of panel membership continuity)
- United States v. Robertson, 17 C.M.A. 604 (1968) (panels should generally remain constant but circumstances may require change)
- United States v. Allen, 33 M.J. 209 (C.M.A. 1991) (mere appearance of influence insufficient; must show connection to case fairness)
- United States v. Salyer, 72 M.J. 415 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (removal of a military judge can give rise to apparent UCI where government action is inappropriate)
- Witt v. United States, 75 M.J. 380 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (judges ordinarily should hear matters assigned unless disqualified)
- Laird v. Tatum, 409 U.S. 824 (1972) (standing and limitations on judicial action where appearance issues arise)