In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reviewed the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) ruling regarding reassigning a military judge in a court-martial proceeding. The Appellant, Specialist Tayron D. Davis of the U.S. Army, was convicted of two sexual assault charges under Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), while being acquitted of an attempted sexual assault charge. The central issue arose from the reassignment of his trial from Judge Pritchard to Judge Hynes. Judge Pritchard stepped down to avoid ruling on a likely defense motion for a unanimous verdict. The ACCA set aside the findings and dismissed the case with prejudice, citing structural error in the reassignment of the trial judge. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reviewed whether the reassignment constituted structural error and, if not, whether the reassignment prejudiced the Appellant's case.
Background of the Case
The case arose from allegations that on November 24, 2020, Specialist Davis engaged in sexual misconduct against Sergeant (SGT) LT in her home while stationed in Stuttgart, Germany. Davis was charged with two specifications of sexual assault and one specification of attempted sexual assault.
Colonel (COL) Charles Pritchard, Chief Circuit Judge of the Army's 5th Judicial Circuit, initially detailed himself as the presiding judge. However, in April 2022, before the trial began, he reassigned the case to Lieutenant Colonel (Judge) Thomas Hynes, citing concerns about judicial delays related to a pending appeal on unanimous verdict requirements. The ACCA found this reassignment constituted a structural error, mandating reversal of the conviction.
The Court's Analysis
The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reviewed two main issues. First, whether the ACCA erred in finding that the reassignment of the case resulted in a structural error, and second, whether the ACCA erred in finding that the reassignment prejudiced the Appellant and warranted dismissal with prejudice.
The court determined that reassignment alone does not automatically constitute structural error. While acknowledging that COL Pritchard's reassignment of the case was improper, the court emphasized that an error qualifies as structural only if it affects the entire proceeding and renders the trial fundamentally unfair. The court found no evidence that the reassignment compromised the fairness of the trial or the impartiality of Judge Hynes. Therefore, it ruled that the ACCA erred in categorizing the reassignment as a structural error.
The court then analyzed whether the reassignment prejudiced the Appellant. Under Article 59(a), UCMJ, the standard for nonconstitutional errors requires showing a reasonable probability that the trial's outcome would have been different but for the error. The court found no indication that Davis's trial was unfair, noting that Judge Hynes acquitted Davis of one charge and imposed the exact sentence the defense requested.
The court also rejected the ACCA's interpretation that Judge Hynes had a predetermined intent to deny a unanimous verdict motion. Instead, it credited his subsequent clarification that he volunteered for reassigned cases without preconditions. The court concluded that Davis failed to demonstrate that he suffered actual prejudice due to the reassignment and reversed the ACCA's decision, finding that while the reassignment was improper, it did not constitute structural error or materially prejudice the Appellant's case. The case was remanded to the ACCA for further review under Article 66 of the UCMJ.
Clickhere to read the full opinion.
Contact A Norfolk Military Criminal Defense Lawyer
If you or someone you know is facing military charges, contact an experiencedNorfolk military criminal defense lawyer at The Griffin Law Firm for legal assistance.