Out, damned error out, I say! The year in court-martial personnel, voir dire and challenges, and pleas and pretrial agreements

Army Lawyer, May, 2005 by Deidra J. Fleming

(108) Id.

(109) Id. at 458.

(110) Id. at 460. The court determined an actual bias challenge did not exist based on 1LT Olson's voir dire responses. Id.

(111) Id.

(112) Id. at 459.

(113) Id. at 460.

(114) Id. (quoting United States v. Youngblood, 47 M.J. 338, 341 (1997)) (citations omitted).

(115) United States v. Armstrong, 54 M.J. 51 (2000) (holding that a challenge for cause asserts both an actual and implied bias basis).

(116) United States v. Richardson, No. 200101917, 2003 CCA LEXIS 180 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 2003) (unpub.),pet. granted, 60 M.J. 124 (2004).

(117) Id. at *2-3.

(118) Id. at *3-4. The record contained ninety-two pages of individual voir dire. Id.

(119) Id. at *4.

(120) Id. at *4-5.

(121) Id. at *9-10. The military judge granted the one casual challenge because of the member's extensive drug interdiction experiences and "to a very lesser degree his dealings with the trial counsel." Id. at *9.

(122) Id. at *10.

(123) Id. at *11 (citing United States v. Downing, 56 M.J. 419, 422 (2002)).

(124) Id. at *6.

(125) Id. at *11.

(126) Id.

(127) United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Scheduled Hearings, at http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/Nov2004.htm (last visited Apr. 28, 2005) (providing a list of scheduled hearings, including United States v. Richardson on November 9, 2004).

(128) See United States v. Dewrell, 55 M.J. 131 (2001) (affirming military judge's discretion to control voir dire by restricting either party from conducting group voir dire); United States v. Lambert, 55 M.J. 293, 296 (2001) (holding that "neither the UCMJ not the [MCM] gives the defense the right to individually question the members"); United States v. Belflower, 50 M.J. 306 (1999) (finding a military judge's decision to deny individual voir dire is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

(129) See United States v. Hamilton, 41 M.J. 32 (C.M.A. 1994) (affirming a military judge's denial of challenges for cause against members who were prior legal assistance clients of the trial counsel).

(130) MCM, supra note 4, R.C.M. 912 (f) Discussion.

(131) United States v. Reynolds, 23 M.J. 292 (C.M.A. 1987).

(132) Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (1987) (quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985)).

(133) See United States v. Giles, 48 M.J. 60 (1998) (determining the military judge clearly abused his discretion by failing to grant a challenge for cause against a member who categorically stated that anyone who distributed drugs should receive a bad conduct discharge); Cf. United States v. Schlamer, 52 M.J. 80 (1999) (holding that a member who states "you take a life, you owe a life" is not per se disqualified if she agrees to review the evidence and follow the military judge's instructions).

(134) United States v. Rolle, 53 M.J. 187 (2000); United States v. Schlamer, 52 M.J. 80 (1999); United States v. Giles, 48 M.J. 60 (1998); United States v. Dale, 42 M.J. 384 (1995).

(135) United States v. Quintanilla, 60 M.J. 852 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2005).

(136) United States v. James, 2003 CCA LEXIS 298 (A.F. Crim. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2003) (unpub.),pet. granted, 60 M.J. 124 (2004).