A Cornprehenawe Guide to the Military Pretrial Investigation

• Author: by Major Larry A. Gaydos
• Pages: 03

1. INTRODUCTION

   No specification or charge may be referred to a general courtmartial unless there has been a thorough and impartial pretriai investigation conducted in substantial compliance with Article 32 of the UniformCode of Military Justice (UCMJ) The UCMJ specifically atates that failure to comply with Article 32 is not jurisdictional error;% a defective Article 32 investigation. however, may deprive the accused of a substan. nal pretrial righta and warrant appropriate relief at tnal.'

   Commentators and courts frequently compare the Article 32 mvesti. gation to the federal prelimmary examination and the federal grand

   'Judge Adrocare Ganersrr Corps, rmBd States Army In~trut~~r.

   Criminal La* Dwmm

   The Judge Advocate General's School US &mi. 1983 to present Formerly assigned a i Senior Defense Counsel, Hanau. Federal Repubhe of Germany, 1979 to 1981. and as T'rlal Counsel 3d Armored D i w m Hanau. 1978 to 1919 B A , Umfed States Mihtari Acad-emy 1973, J D , Unneriiiy of hrgmia Lau School 1978 Completed 31st Judge Advo. a t e Offrcer GraduafD Course. 1983 .4uthor of The SJA 08 the Carnmandsrb iaw)si A RroiirficPiaposaI.TheArm) Lau)er, Aug 1983,af 14 CIzenfRijuq AGuide farMali tar, Defmm Counsd The Army Lau~er. Sspt 1983. at 13, The Randolph-ShepDmd Act A Trap for the Cnuory Judge Adrocate, The Arm? Laa?er. Feb 1984. at 21Member of the bars of the Commonwealth af Yirpmia. the United Stem Court of Appeals forthefavrthClrcu~t,andrheSupremeCaurtaf fheUnitedStstei ThiiartielewiUsppear as B chapter m DA Pam 27.173 Trial Procedure. aehedvled m be printed m September 1986'Uniform Code of Ildltar) Justice art 32ia1, IU US C 5 8321al Olereinafter crfed ai UCMJ). Manual for Courts-Msrtal. United States. 1984, Rule for Courts-Martla1 40611)@emmiter cned as R C hl I

   'UCMJ mf 3Xd) provides that "[tpe requrements of thib art& are binding on ail per-~mssdminiiienne thischapter bur fsilvretofoUow themdosand conatitvteIllna&cf~onal

   NILITARY LAW REVIEW [Vol 111

   lury Although the Article 32 investigation is not exactly equivalent to either federal proceeding, it has elements of both and derve~ as the sol. dier's counterpart in guaranteeing that the accused will not be tried on baseless charges.#

   The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has empha. sized the significance of the pretrial mvestigation.' In Talbot i. Toth'the accused wan charged with murder and WBS placed in pretrial confinement. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that court-martial procedures denied him due process. He specifically contended that the lack of a grand jury inquiry and indictment constituted a demal of procedural due process. Recognizing that the fifth amendment exempts ''cases arising in the land or naval forces" from the requirement ai indictment by grand jury, the court of appeals went on to add that:

   These proviaons of the Uniform Code [Articles 32 and 341 seem to afford an accused as great protection by way of preliminary inquiry into probable came a8 do requirements for grand jury inquiry and Indictment.. . . Thus the basic pur-pose of a hearing preliminary to tnal 1s being met by a method designed pursuant to constitutional prawaans, and the method meets all elements essential to due process

   The purpose of this article 1s to provide B comprehensme guide to the law applicable to the Article 32 pretrial investigation and the Article 34 pretrial advice.

   'See,ep.UnitadStsiesv Nxhals.3CMA 119.23CMR 343~196711Soanerarlatar thê I ~ t s r y aemees must reahie that this pmess IS the milifary counterpart of B eiwlian p~elmmary hearing and ~t LJ ludicis1 I" nstnre and scape 1 MseDonsld I, Hodaon, 18C M A 582, 42 C.MR 184 1197oJ me Article 32 lnvestigsfion parmkes of the nature bath of B p~ehmmary judlcial hearm# and of the proceedings ai B %rand iury See oisoMurphy The Formal Pietrial Investigation 12 Md L Rev 8 11961J, Moyer, Pmesdural Rights of Ihr Mliiary Accused Adranragra Over D Ciiilinn Ddondanl. 22 Me L Rer

   1 ni /, am,

   ."y,."l",

   Wmfed States v Samuels. 10 C M A 206. 27 C M R 280 11959) flt 18 aorrarenf thst the

   Talbot L Toth, 215 F>d 22 (D C Cir 19541 'Id'Id at 28

   19861 PRETRIAL INVESTIGATION PART ONE-THE ARTICLE 32 PRETRIAL.

   INVESTIGATION II. THE PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION A. STATUTORY

   The three statutorily recognized purposes of the Article 32 pretrial investigation are to (1) inquire into the truth af the mattern set forth m the charges: (2) consider the form of the charges; and (3) obtain e.n impartial recommendation as to the disposition that should be made of the case lo

   Although the recommendations of the investigating officer are only advisory," the investigation provides the convening authority with a screening device to identify and dismiss specifications which are not supported by available evidence or which are otherwise legally deficient The convening authonty is spemfically precluded from referring a specification to a general courtmartial if the staff judge advocate candudes in the pretrial advice that the specification IB not warranted by the evidence indicated in the Article 32 report of investigation."

   2. DISCOVERY

      Although the Article 32 investigation was not onginally designed to be a defense discovery procedure,'' the broad rights afforded the accused

      'ODCblJart 321ai.R C M 4061a)diseusemn

      "R C M 4051a) dvcuasion See also Green Y. U'iddecke, 19 C M A 576, 42 C M R 178 119701 Onvestlgatmp officer'! recommendation that the accused be proaeevted far dun.taw manihghter did not preclude referralof an unpremeditated murder charge)

      "There 15 some disagreement whether the Article 32 investigation %a6 ongmall) I". tended to be a defense discovery device There 18 nome ~ ~ p p o i i in the legiilatlve history far bath sides af the mue Proponenfa of the po~ition that the Article 32 inrestigafian wab in.tended to be B defenae dmavery deim pomt to the followmg testimony gnen by Ilr Larkin before the Houae Committee on Armed Serrlces

      "UCMJ 34ian21

      me Article 32 ~nus~t~ganon]goes further than you usually find m B proceeding m a cnil cmrt m that nor only doe6 LI enable the ~nvebtigatlng officer

      IO determine nhether there 18 pmbable CBUX but It IS partially m thenature of a discai eri far the accvaed m that he IS able to find out a good dealaf the facts and c~~cumdmnceiwhich ale alleged tc have been committed Khirhb~BndlaigeI.morpfhananaccvbedmacivilcsPeIsDntifledtoHearing8 onHR 249EBeforaaSubcornm oftheHousrComrn onAimrdSeio~crs.Slat cang , 1st Seal 997 11949)

      Opponents of the defense discoren paifion point tc the fact that the hearmga taken 81 B rhale damonitrate ~n intent to create B maehanlsm far detemmmg the exmtance of prab. able cause An? utrht? the investigation may haw 88 B diieovery tool 18 vlewed ae a purely coincidental by-product of this probable c m e determlnatmn see gentmil, Cmiad Smrrs

      Y Connor, 19 M J 631 IN M C \I R 19841, petifion grnntsd. 20 M J 363 (C.M A 19 Because the defense dimvery purpose 18 not menrmned anywhere else m the legdm hatar), or m Article 32 itself the better web IP probably that defense dlseorew vad tended only tn be a eallarersl consequence of the mvebtlgstmn

      to have reaaonably available witnesses" and ewdence" produced at the investigation make it a useful discovery tool. Appellate courts have gem erally recognized that the Article 32 investigation does fulfill a le& mate defense discovery purpose.la This discovery purpose has also been recogmzed by the drafters of Military Rule of Evidence (Rule) 804" and Rule far Courta-Martial (R.C M ) 405

   3. PRESER Ll TI0.V OF TESTI.IIO.IYAS.4 COLL.1TERAL PLRPOSE

      In addition to Its express statutory purposes and recognized discovery purpose, the Article 32 investigation also mves B collateral purpose re. lated to the preservation of testimony. The Article 32 Investigating of. ficer IS charged with identifying whether potential witnesses wll beavailable for trialls and evidentiary rules allow far some Article 32 testi. many to be used at trial so

      4OSBJ(lX

   1. Seegenrrnlly lnim ~ecfmn

      IY

      406I1XlXB1 Sea pensral0 mirn 6ectmo IV

      C &I R 260 286 119591 Or 18 apparent that the Article 132 mvaitigatlonl $ewe8 a fuofald purpose It operates BP a discover) proceeding for rhe arcused and stands 88 a bulwark aeainat baaelers charges 1, United States \ Tomapiewskr 8 C hl A 266, 24 C M R 16 11957) (The .4rticle 32 inremgstmn ''operate8 as B diacavery proceedme. 'i But bee United Stares Y Eggera. 3 C M A 191, 194.11 C M R 191 194 I19531 IDiseavery IS not a prime obiert 01 the prerrxal iniesflgstmn At mast ~r 18 a iircumefanful by product--and aright unguaranteed to defense mvnsel ! United Sfsfes $, Connar 19 \I J 631 IN M C M R1984) petfllzon grnnlad 20 M J 363 IC M A 19861

      "In discuisingubether Leitimonyaf rheArocla32 ~merrigafmnahauld fallwiththe iedf d t

      Ear the Committee to deteimine exncrl) ha- the Federal Rule

      wuld ~pply fo Arflcle 32 hearing. The specific diffmlf) items from thefact that Article 32 hearings %ere intended by Congresa to fvneflan a8 dm cover) dewees Ear rho defense 88 well as to recommend an appropriarp dwa-s m n of charges to the canienrng sufhoriigMil R Evid 804ib) malgss (19801 Ithe Mdifar) Rules of E,ldenee wlU be mred a& Rule ~nthetextandMd R Ewd ~nrheiaotnoteri

      "After avfhnmg the pnmary (ttatut~nlyrecognned! purpoaes of the Article 32 ~nvesfi- gation, the drafters of R C M 405 stare thst "Ithe lnrrsrrgetim s180 serves 8s a meand of discovery "R

      C M 405(a)discuasmn

      "R C hl 406lhXIXAJ diaeuiman. Dep't of Army, Pamphlet No 21 17. Procedural Guide For Article 32ib1 Invamganng OfBcer. para 3 3a (Mar 19861 (heremafter elfed 88 DA PamZi-I7l,seralsa DDFarm 457, Inveai$atingOfficersRoport. block 16lAug 19811

      ""Md R Erid 613 Ompsachmenf with prior ~ncmsirfent rlatemenfsl. Md R Evid 80lidX1! ipriar btatementb of mtneises admissible BI anbitantwe endme). Mil R Evid 804ibHll (former resfimon) aiunavsilable wtnei~esadmiaaible as substantive evidence1

      19861 PRETRIAL INVESTIGATION

      2. Pnorstatements underRule 8O!(d,Y!).

         Under Rule...