United States v. Witt
72 M.J. 727
| A.F.C.C.A. | 2013Background
- Appellant was tried by a general court-martial (twelve officers) in 2005 for the premeditated murder of SrA AS and JS and the attempted premeditated murder of SrA JK on Warner Robins Air Force Base; he was sentenced to death, and the convening authority approved the findings and sentence.
- The court-martial record showed a July 4–5, 2004 sequence: appellant learned of alleged sexual advances, confronted victims, armed himself with a knife, and attacked the three inside SrA AS’s base home, fatally wounding two and injuring a third.
- DNA and fiber analyses linked appellent’s BDU clothing to victims; DNA matched JS on clothing and knife fibers matched fibers from AS and JK’s shirts, corroborating the stabbing sequence.
- The findings were unanimous on the murders; the sentencing panel, by unanimous vote, sentenced the appellant to death, but the court later affirmed findings and set aside the sentence, returning the case for remand to remand for resentencing.
- The appellate court addressed multiple issues including ABA Guidelines, unlawful command influence (UCI), admissibility of photographs, impeachment evidence, and trial counsel performance, applying Strickland v. Washington standards and de novo review where appropriate.
- On review, the court reversed the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing, while affirming the findings of guilt; the remand directs a new sentencing proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABA Guidelines binding effect | Witt argues ABA Guidelines are mandatory for Air Force death cases. | Appellate court held Guidelines are recommendations, not mandatory. | ABA Guidelines are nonbinding; Strickland governs counsel performance. |
| Unlawful command influence (UCI) by SJA Col JR | SJA attended trial, sat near victims’ families, and communicated with prosecutors, causing UCI. | Record shows no actual or implied bias; attendance and contact were not prejudicial. | No UCI found; no need for evidentiary hearing. |
| Impeachment of SSgt PG | Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement should have been admitted to impeach PG. | R.C.M. 613 requirements met; testimony did not prejudice findings. | Error admitted; de novo review shows harmlessness; the verdict was not substantially influenced. |
| Investigation into mitigating evidence (motorcycle accident) in sentencing | Counsel deficient for not pursuing potential traumatic brain injury evidence from a prior motorcycle accident. | Counsel relied on experts and strategic decisions; no prejudice shown. | Deficient performance found; prejudice shown; sentence reversed and remanded for new sentencing hearing. |
| Investigation of mother’s mental health records | Defense failed to obtain maternal mental health records that might mitigate sentence. | Records would have offered limited additional mitigation; strategic choice. | Counsel performance deficient; potential mitigation not adequately pursued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984) (deficient performance plus prejudice required for ineffective assistance)
- Loving v. United States, 41 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F.1994) (ABA standards not mandatory; framework for fair trial)
- United States v. Estrada, 69 M.J. 45 (C.A.A.F.2010) (regulatory construction; guidelines are advisory)
- United States v. Ter ry, 64 M.J. 295 (C.A.A.F.2007) (liberal grant of defense challenges; bias standards)
- Da-matta-Olvera, 37 M.J. 474 (C.M.A.1993) (Damattar-Olivera test for premeditation instructions)
- United States v. Berry, 61 M.J. 97 (C.A.A.F.2005) (evidence evaluation and harmless error framework)