Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed Amendments, 15272-15278 [2016-06393]
Download as PDF
15272
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Notices
the corresponding European Market
Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR)
requirements.
The equivalence agreement announced by
European Commissioner Jonathan Hill and
myself is an important step in achieving
cross-border harmonization of derivatives
regulation. It provides a foundation for
cooperation among regulators in the
oversight of the global clearinghouses that are
so important in our financial system today.
It resolves the issues that were standing in
the way of Europe recognizing U.S. CCPs.
And it helps make sure that the U.S. and
European derivatives markets can continue to
be dynamic, with robust competition and
liquidity across borders.
The action we have taken today is an
important component of that agreement. The
notice identifies the rules for which the
CFTC will grant substituted compliance.
These include rules related to CCP financial
resources, risk management, settlement
procedures, and default management. We
have also streamlined the process for
registration, which will further harmonize
our regimes.
Finally, CFTC staff today are also
providing no-action relief from the
application of Commission regulations to
discrete aspects of a clearinghouse’s non-U.S.
clearing activities.
The Commission is working with U.S.
clearinghouses seeking recognition by the
European Securities and Market Authority
(ESMA) to ensure ESMA has all necessary
information to review their applications in a
timely manner. I look forward to ESMA
completing the recognition process in a
manner that ensures the global derivatives
markets can continue to function efficiently
and without disruption.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Appendix 3—Statement of
Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo
I support the comparability determinations
issued by the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (‘‘CFTC’’).
Today’s action furthers the commitment to
a common approach for transatlantic central
clearing counterparties (CCPs) announced on
February 10, 2016 by my colleague, CFTC
Chairman Timothy Massad, and
Commissioner Jonathan Hill of the European
Commission (EC). Under the comparability
determinations, CCPs that are authorized in
the European Union (EU) under the European
Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) and
registered with the CFTC may comply with
certain CFTC requirements for financial
resources, risk management, settlement
procedures, and default rules and procedures
by complying with corresponding
requirements under the EMIR framework.
Today’s notice also provides for a
streamlined approach for EU CCPs that may
wish to register with the CFTC in the future.
As I said when it was announced, the
agreement reached between the EC and the
CFTC avoids unacceptable changes to four
decades of U.S. clearinghouse margin policy
and higher costs of hedging risk for
America’s farmers, ranchers, financial
institutions, energy firms and manufacturers.
Yet, as I have observed, the protracted
process for reaching this compromise was
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
made needlessly complex because both the
EC and the CFTC insisted on a line-by-line
rule analysis contrary to the flexible,
outcomes-based approach advocated by the
OTC Derivatives Regulators Group. While the
end result is a good one, the approach taken
to get here was needlessly circuitous and
uncertain.
The CFTC and its global counterparts must
now recommit themselves to work together to
implement an equivalence and substituted
compliance process, particularly for swaps
execution and the cross-border activities of
swap dealers and major swaps participants,
based on common principles in order to
increase regulatory harmonization and
reduce market balkanization.1 The future of
the global swaps marketplace depends on it.
[FR Doc. 2016–06261 Filed 3–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DOD–2015–OS–0099]
Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed
Amendments
Joint Service Committee on
Military Justice (JSC), Department of
Defense.
ACTION: Notice of response to public
comments on proposed amendments to
the Manual for Courts-Martial, United
States (2012 ed.) (MCM).
AGENCY:
The JSC is publishing final
proposed amendments to the MCM. The
proposed changes concern the Rules for
Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of
Evidence, and the punitive articles
applicable in trials by courts-martial.
These proposed changes have not been
coordinated within the Department of
Defense under DoD Directive 5500.1,
‘‘Preparation, Processing and
Coordinating Legislation, Executive
Orders, Proclamations, Views Letters
and Testimony,’’ June 15, 2007, and do
not constitute the official position of the
Department of Defense, the Military
Departments, or any other Government
agency.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Major Harlye Carlton, USMC, JSC
Executive Secretary, at harlye.carlton@
usmc.mil. The JSC public Web site is
located at https://jsc.defense.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments: Comments and
materials received from the public are
available under Docket ID Number
DOD–2015–OS–0099, Federal Register
Number 2015–26485, and at the
SUMMARY:
1 See, e.g., IOSCO Task Force on Cross-Border
Regulation, Final Report (Sept. 2015) (advocating
for an outcomes-based approach as opposed to a
line-by-line comparison of rules).
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
following link: https://www.regulations.
gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2015-OS0099.
Background
On October 19, 2015 (80 FR 63204–
63212), the JSC published a Notice of
Proposed Amendments concerning the
rules of procedure and evidence and the
punitive articles applicable in trials by
courts-martial and a Notice of Public
Meeting to receive comments on these
proposals. The public meeting was held
on November 5, 2015. No comments
were received at the public meeting.
The 60-day public comment period for
the notice closed on December 18, 2015.
One public comment was received.
The JSC considered the public
comments and after conducting
deliberations, made no modifications to
the proposed amendments to the MCM
as a result of the public comments. The
JSC conducted additional internal
deliberations and made some
modifications to the proposed
amendments to the MCM accordingly.
Comments that were submitted that are
outside the scope of the originallyproposed changes will be considered as
part of the JSC 2016 annual review of
the MCM.
Proposed Amendments After Period for
Public Comment
The proposed recommended
amendments to the MCM that have been
forwarded through the DoD for action by
Executive Order of the President of the
United States are as follows:
Section 1. Part II of the Manual for
Courts-Martial, United States, is
amended as follows:
(a) The title of R.C.M. 104(b)(1) is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) Evaluation of member, defense
counsel, or special victims’ counsel.’’
(b) R.C.M. 104(b)(1)(B) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(B) Give a less favorable rating or
evaluation of any defense counsel or
special victims’ counsel because of the
zeal with which such counsel
represented any client. As used in this
rule, ‘‘special victims’ counsel’’ are
judge advocates who, in accordance
with 10 U.S.C. 1044e, are designated as
Special Victims’ Counsel by the Judge
Advocate General of the armed force in
which the judge advocates are members,
and within the Marine Corps, by the
Staff Judge Advocate to the
Commandant of the Marine Corps.’’
(c) R.C.M. 305(h)(2)(B)(iii)(a) is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘(a) The prisoner will not appear at
trial, pretrial hearing, preliminary
hearing, or investigation, or’’
E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM
22MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Notices
(d) R.C.M. 305(i)(2)(A)(iv) is amended
to read as follows:
‘‘(iv) Victim’s right to be reasonably
heard. A victim of an alleged offense
committed by the prisoner has the right
to reasonable, accurate, and timely
notice of the 7-day review; the right to
confer with the representative of the
command and counsel for the
government, if any; and the right to be
reasonably heard during the review.
However, the hearing may not be
unduly delayed for this purpose. The
right to be heard under this rule
includes the right to be heard through
counsel and the right to be reasonably
protected from the prisoner during the
7-day review. The victim of an alleged
offense shall be notified of these rights
in accordance with regulations of the
Secretary concerned.’’
(e) A new R.C.M. 306(e) is inserted
and reads as follows:
‘‘(e) Sex-related offenses.
(1) For purposes of this subsection, a
‘‘sex-related offense’’ means any
allegation of a violation of Article 120,
120a, 120b, 120c, or 125 or any attempt
thereof under Article 80, UCMJ.
(2) Under such regulations as the
Secretary concerned may prescribe, for
alleged sex-related offenses committed
in the United States, the victim of the
sex-related offense shall be provided an
opportunity to express views as to
whether the offense should be
prosecuted by court-martial or in a
civilian court with jurisdiction over the
offense. The commander, and if charges
are preferred, the convening authority,
shall consider such views as to the
victim’s preference for jurisdiction, if
available, prior to making an initial
disposition decision. For purposes of
this rule, ‘‘victim’’ is defined as an
individual who has suffered direct
physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm
as a result of the commission of an
alleged sex-related offense as defined in
subparagraph (A) of this rule.
(3) Under such regulations as the
Secretary concerned may prescribe, if
the victim of an alleged sex-related
offense expresses a preference for
prosecution of the offense in a civilian
court, the commander, and if charges
are preferred, the convening authority,
shall ensure that the civilian authority
with jurisdiction over the offense is
notified of the victim’s preference for
civilian prosecution. If the commander,
and if charges are preferred, the
convening authority learns of any
decision by the civilian authority to
prosecute or not prosecute the offense in
civilian court, the convening authority
shall ensure the victim is notified.’’
(f) R.C.M. 403(b)(5) is amended to
read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
‘‘(5) Unless otherwise prescribed by
the Secretary concerned, direct a
preliminary hearing under R.C.M. 405,
and, if appropriate, forward the report of
preliminary hearing with the charges to
a superior commander for disposition.’’
(g) R.C.M. 405(i)(2)(A) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(2) Notice to and presence of the
victim(s).
(A) The victim(s) of an offense under
the UCMJ has the right to reasonable,
accurate, and timely notice of a
preliminary hearing relating to the
alleged offense, the right to be
reasonably protected from the accused,
and the reasonable right to confer with
counsel for the government during the
preliminary hearing. For the purposes of
this rule, a ‘‘victim’’ is a person who is
alleged to have suffered a direct
physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm
as a result of the matters set forth in a
charge or specification under
consideration and is named in one of
the specifications under consideration.’’
(h) R.C.M. 407(a)(5) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(5) Unless otherwise prescribed by
the Secretary concerned, direct a
preliminary hearing under R.C.M. 405,
after which additional action under this
rule may be taken;’’
(i) R.C.M. 502(d)(4)(B) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(B) An investigating or preliminary
hearing officer;’’
(j) RCM 502(e)(2)(C) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(C) An investigating or preliminary
hearing officer;’’
(k) R.C.M. 506(b)(2) is amended by
replacing ‘‘investigation’’ with
‘‘preliminary hearing.’’
(l) R.C.M 601(d)(2)(A) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(A) There has been substantial
compliance with the preliminary
hearing requirements of R.C.M. 405;
and’’
(m) R.C.M. 705(c)(2)(A) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(A) A promise to enter into a
stipulation of fact concerning offenses to
which a plea of guilty or a confessional
stipulation will be entered;’’
(n) R.C.M. 705(d)(3) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(3) Acceptance.
(A) In general. The convening
authority may either accept or reject an
offer of the accused to enter into a
pretrial agreement or may propose by
counteroffer any terms or conditions not
prohibited by law or public policy. The
decision whether to accept or reject an
offer is within the sole discretion of the
convening authority. When the
convening authority has accepted a
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15273
pretrial agreement, the agreement shall
be signed by the convening authority or
by a person, such as the staff judge
advocate or trial counsel, who has been
authorized by the convening authority
to sign.
(B) Victim consultation. Whenever
practicable, prior to the convening
authority accepting a pretrial agreement
the victim shall be provided an
opportunity to express views
concerning the pretrial agreement terms
and conditions in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary
concerned. The convening authority
shall consider any such views provided
prior to accepting a pretrial agreement.
For purposes of this rule, a ‘‘victim’’ is
an individual who is alleged to have
suffered direct physical, emotional, or
pecuniary harm as a result of the
matters set forth in a charge or
specification under consideration and is
named in one of the specifications
under consideration.’’
(o) A new R.C.M. 806(b)(2) is inserted
and reads as follows:
‘‘(2) Right of victim to notice. A victim
of an alleged offense committed by the
accused has the right to reasonable,
accurate, and timely notice of courtmartial proceedings relating to the
offense.’’
(p) R.C.M. 806(b)(2) is renumbered as
R.C.M. 806(b)(3).
(q) R.C.M. 806(b)(3) is renumbered as
R.C.M. 806(b)(4).
(r) R.C.M. 806(b)(4) is renumbered as
R.C.M. 806(b)(5).
(s) A new R.C.M. 806(b)(6) is inserted
and reads as follows:
‘‘(6) Right of victim to be reasonably
protected from the accused. A victim of
an alleged offense committed by the
accused has the right to be reasonably
protected from the accused.’’
(t) R.C.M. 902(b)(2) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(2) Where the military judge has
acted as counsel, preliminary hearing
officer, investigating officer, legal
officer, staff judge advocate, or
convening authority as to any offense
charged or in the same case generally.’’
(u) R.C.M. 905(b)(1) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(1) Defenses or objections based on
defects (other than jurisdictional
defects) in the preferral, forwarding, or
referral of charges, or in the preliminary
hearing;’’
(v) R.C.M. 907(b)(1) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(1) Nonwaivable grounds. A charge
or specification shall be dismissed at
any stage of the proceedings if the courtmartial lacks jurisdiction to try the
accused for the offense.’’
(w) R.C.M. 907(b)(1)(A)–(B) is deleted.
E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM
22MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
15274
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Notices
(x) A new R.C.M. 907(b)(2)(E) is
inserted and reads as follows:
‘‘(E) The specification fails to state an
offense.’’
(y) R.C.M. 912(a)(1)(K) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(K) Whether the member has acted as
accuser, counsel, preliminary hearing
officer, investigating officer, convening
authority, or legal officer or staff judge
advocate for the convening authority in
the case, or has forwarded the charges
with a recommendation as to
disposition.’’
(z) R.C.M. 912(f)(1)(F) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(F) Has been an investigating or
preliminary hearing officer as to any
offense charged;’’
(aa) R.C.M. 1002 is amended to read
as follows:
‘‘(a) Generally. Subject to limitations
in this Manual, the sentence to be
adjudged is a matter within the
discretion of the court-martial; except
when a mandatory minimum sentence
is prescribed by the code, a courtmartial may adjudge any punishment
authorized in this Manual, including the
maximum punishment or any lesser
punishment, or may adjudge a sentence
of no punishment.
(b) Unitary Sentencing. Sentencing by
a court-martial is unitary. The courtmartial will adjudge a single sentence
for all the offenses of which the accused
was found guilty. A court-martial may
not impose separate sentences for each
finding of guilty, but may impose only
a single, unitary sentence covering all of
the guilty findings in their entirety.’’
(bb) R.C.M. 1103(b)(2)(B)(i) is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘(i) The sentence adjudged includes
confinement for twelve months or more
or any punishment that may not be
adjudged by a special court-martial; or’’
(cc) The Note currently located
immediately following the title of
R.C.M. 1107 and prior to R.C.M. 1107(a)
is amended to read as follows:
‘‘[Note: R.C.M. 1107(b)–(f) apply to
offenses committed on or after 24 June
2014; however, if at least one offense
resulting in a finding of guilty in a case
occurred prior to 24 June 2014, or
includes a date range where the earliest
date in the range for that offense is
before 24 June 2014, then the prior
version of R.C.M. 1107 applies to all
offenses in the case, except that
mandatory minimum sentences under
Article 56(b) and applicable rules under
R.C.M. 1107(d)(1)(D)–(E) still apply.]’’
(dd) R.C.M. 1107(b)(5) is amended to
delete the sentence, ‘‘Nothing in this
subsection shall prohibit the convening
authority from disapproving the
findings of guilty and sentence.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
(ee) R.C.M. 1107(c) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(c) Action on findings. Action on the
findings is not required. However, the
convening authority may take action
subject to the following limitations:
(1) Where a court-martial includes a
finding of guilty for an offense listed in
subparagraph (c)(1)(A) of this rule, the
convening authority may not take the
actions listed in subparagraph (c)(1)(B)
of this rule:
(A) Offenses
(i) Article 120(a) or (b), Article 120b,
or Article 125;
(ii) Offenses for which the maximum
sentence of confinement that may be
adjudged exceeds two years without
regard to the jurisdictional limits of the
court; or
(iii) Offenses where the adjudged
sentence for the case includes dismissal,
dishonorable discharge, bad-conduct
discharge, or confinement for more than
six months.
(B) Prohibited actions
(i) Dismiss a charge or specification
by setting aside a finding of guilty
thereto; or
(ii) Change a finding of guilty to a
charge or specification to a finding of
guilty to an offense that is a lesser
included offense of the offense stated in
the charge or specification.
(2) The convening authority may
direct a rehearing in accordance with
subsection (e) of this rule.
(3) For offenses other than those listed
in subparagraph (c)(1)(A) of this rule:
(A) The convening authority may
change a finding of guilty to a charge or
specification to a finding of guilty to an
offense that is a lesser included offense
of the offense stated in the charge or
specification; or
(B) Set aside any finding of guilty and:
(i) Dismiss the specification and, if
appropriate, the charge; or
(ii) Direct a rehearing in accordance
with subsection (e) of this rule.
(4) If the convening authority acts to
dismiss or change any charge or
specification for an offense, the
convening authority shall provide, at
the same time, a written explanation of
the reasons for such action. The written
explanation shall be made a part of the
record of trial and action thereon.’’
(ff) R.C.M. 1107(d) is amended to read
as follows:
‘‘(d) Action on the sentence.
(1) The convening authority shall take
action on the sentence subject to the
following:
(A) The convening authority may
disapprove, commute, or suspend, in
whole or in part, any portion of an
adjudged sentence not explicitly
prohibited by this rule, to include
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reduction in pay grade, forfeitures of
pay and allowances, fines, reprimands,
restrictions, and hard labor without
confinement.
(B) Except as provided in
subparagraph (d)(1)(C) of this rule, the
convening authority may not
disapprove, commute, or suspend, in
whole or in part, that portion of an
adjudged sentence that includes:
(i) confinement for more than six
months; or
(ii) dismissal, dishonorable discharge,
or bad-conduct discharge.
(C) Exceptions
(i) Trial counsel recommendation.
Upon the recommendation of the trial
counsel, in recognition of the
substantial assistance by the accused in
the investigation or prosecution of
another person who has committed an
offense, the convening authority or
another person authorized to act under
this rule shall have the authority to
disapprove, commute, or suspend the
adjudged sentence, in whole or in part,
even with respect to an offense for
which a mandatory minimum sentence
exists.
(ii) Pretrial agreement. If a pretrial
agreement has been entered into by the
convening authority and the accused, as
authorized by R.C.M. 705, the
convening authority or another person
authorized to act under this rule shall
have the authority to approve,
disapprove, commute, or suspend a
sentence, in whole or in part, pursuant
to the terms of the pretrial agreement.
However, if a mandatory minimum
sentence of a dishonorable discharge
applies to an offense for which an
accused has been convicted, the
convening authority or another person
authorized to act under this rule may
commute the dishonorable discharge to
a bad-conduct discharge pursuant to the
terms of the pretrial agreement.
(D) If the convening authority acts to
disapprove, commute, or suspend, in
whole or in part, the sentence of the
court-martial for an offense listed in
subparagraph (c)(1)(A) of this rule, the
convening authority shall provide, at
the same time, a written explanation of
the reasons for such action. The written
explanation shall be made a part of the
record of trial and action thereon.’’
(gg) R.C.M. 1107(e) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(e) Ordering rehearing or other trial.
(1) Rehearings not permitted. A
rehearing may not be ordered by the
convening authority where the adjudged
sentence for the case includes a
sentence of dismissal, dishonorable
discharge, or bad-conduct discharge or
confinement for more than six months.
(2) Rehearings permitted.
E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM
22MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Notices
(A) In general. Subject to paragraph
(e)(1) and subparagraphs (e)(2)(B)
through (e)(2)(E) of this rule, the
convening authority may in the
convening authority’s discretion order a
rehearing. A rehearing may be ordered
as to some or all offenses of which
findings of guilty were entered and the
sentence, or as to sentence only.
(B) When the convening authority
may order a rehearing. The convening
authority may order a rehearing:
(i) When taking action on the courtmartial under this rule. Prior to ordering
a rehearing on a finding, the convening
authority must disapprove the
applicable finding and the sentence and
state the reasons for disapproval of said
finding. Prior to ordering a rehearing on
the sentence, the convening authority
must disapprove the sentence.
(ii) When authorized to do so by
superior competent authority. If the
convening authority finds a rehearing as
to any offenses impracticable, the
convening authority may dismiss those
specifications and, when appropriate,
charges.
(iii) Sentence reassessment. If a
superior competent authority has
approved some of the findings of guilty
and has authorized a rehearing as to
other offenses and the sentence, the
convening authority may, unless
otherwise directed, reassess the
sentence based on the approved
findings of guilty and dismiss the
remaining charges. Reassessment is
appropriate only where the convening
authority determines that the accused’s
sentence would have been at least of a
certain magnitude had the prejudicial
error not been committed and the
reassessed sentence is appropriate in
relation to the affirmed findings of
guilty.’’
(C) Limitations.
(i) Sentence approved. A rehearing
shall not be ordered if, in the same
action, a sentence is approved.
(ii) Lack of sufficient evidence. A
rehearing may not be ordered as to
findings of guilty when there is a lack
of sufficient evidence in the record to
support the findings of guilty of the
offense charged or of any lesser
included offense. A rehearing may be
ordered, however, if the proof of guilt
consisted of inadmissible evidence for
which there is available an admissible
substitute. A rehearing may be ordered
as to any lesser offense included in an
offense of which the accused was found
guilty, provided there is sufficient
evidence in the record to support the
lesser included offense.
(iii) Rehearing on sentence only. A
rehearing on sentence only shall not be
referred to a different kind of court-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
martial from that which made the
original findings. If the convening
authority determines a rehearing on
sentence is impracticable, the convening
authority may approve a sentence of no
punishment without conducting a
rehearing.
(D) Additional charges. Additional
charges may be referred for trial together
with charges as to which a rehearing has
been directed.
(E) Lesser included offenses. If at a
previous trial the accused was convicted
of a lesser included offense, a rehearing
may be ordered only as to that included
offense or as to an offense included in
that found. If, however, a rehearing is
ordered improperly on the original
offense charged and the accused is
convicted of that offense at the
rehearing, the finding as to the lesser
included offense of which the accused
was convicted at the original trial may
nevertheless be approved.
(3) ‘‘Other’’ trial. The convening or
higher authority may order an ‘‘other’’
trial if the original proceedings were
invalid because of lack of jurisdiction or
failure of a specification to state an
offense. The authority ordering an
‘‘other’’ trial shall state in the action the
basis for declaring the proceedings
invalid.’’
(hh) The Note currently located
immediately following the title of
R.C.M. 1108(b) and prior to the first
line, ‘‘The convening authority may
. . .’’, is amended to read as follows:
‘‘[Note: R.C.M. 1108(b) applies to
offenses committed on or after 24 June
2014; however, if at least one offense in
a case occurred prior to 24 June 2014,
then the prior version of R.C.M. 1108(b)
applies to all offenses in the case.]’’
(ii) R.C.M. 1109(a) is amended to read
as follows:
‘‘(a) In general. Suspension of
execution of the sentence of a courtmartial may be vacated for violation of
any condition of the suspension as
provided in this rule.’’
(jj) R.C.M. 1109(c)(4)(A) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(A) Rights of probationer. Before the
preliminary hearing, the probationer
shall be notified in writing of:’’
(kk) R.C.M. 1109(c)(4)(C) is amended
to read as follows:
‘‘(C) Decision. The hearing officer
shall determine whether there is
probable cause to believe that the
probationer violated the conditions of
the probationer’s suspension. If the
hearing officer determines that probable
cause is lacking, the hearing officer shall
issue a written order directing that the
probationer be released from
confinement. If the hearing officer
determines that there is probable cause
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15275
to believe that the probationer violated
a condition of suspension, the hearing
officer shall set forth this determination
in a written memorandum that details
therein the evidence relied upon and
reasons for making the decision. The
hearing officer shall forward the original
memorandum or release order to the
probationer’s commander and forward a
copy to the probationer and the officer
in charge of the confinement facility.’’
(ll) A new sentence is added to the
end of R.C.M. 1109(d)(1)(A) and reads as
follows:
‘‘The purpose of the hearing is for the
hearing officer to determine whether
there is probable cause to believe that
the probationer violated a condition of
the probationer’s suspension.’’
(mm) R.C.M. 1109(d)(1)(C) is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘(C) Hearing. The procedure for the
vacation hearing shall follow that
prescribed in subsection (h) of this
rule.’’
(nn) A new sentence is added to the
end of R.C.M. 1109(d)(1)(D) and reads as
follows:
‘‘This record shall include the
recommendation, the evidence relied
upon, and reasons for making the
decision.’’
(oo) R.C.M. 1109(d)(2)(A) is amended
to read as follows:
‘‘(A) In general. The officer exercising
general court-martial jurisdiction over
the probationer shall review the record
produced by and the recommendation
of the officer exercising special courtmartial jurisdiction over the
probationer, decide whether there is
probable cause to believe that the
probationer violated a condition of the
probationer’s suspension, and, if so,
decide whether to vacate the suspended
sentence. If the officer exercising
general court-martial jurisdiction
decides to vacate the suspended
sentence, that officer shall prepare a
written statement of the evidence relied
on and the reasons for vacating the
suspended sentence.’’
(pp) A new sentence is added to the
end of R.C.M. 1109(e)(1) and reads as
follows:
‘‘The purpose of the hearing is for the
hearing officer to determine whether
there is probable cause to believe that
the probationer violated the conditions
of the probationer’s suspension.’’
(qq) R.C.M. 1109(e)(3) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(3) Hearing. The procedure for the
vacation hearing shall follow that
prescribed in subsection (h) of this
rule.’’
(rr) A new sentence is added to the
end of R.C.M. 1109(e)(5) and reads as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM
22MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
15276
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Notices
‘‘This record shall include the
recommendation, the evidence relied
upon, and reasons for making the
decision.’’
(ss) R.C.M. 1109(e)(6) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(6) Decision. The special courtmartial convening authority shall
review the record produced by and the
recommendation of the person who
conducted the vacation proceeding,
decide whether there is probable cause
to believe that the probationer violated
a condition of the probationer’s
suspension, and, if so, decide whether
to vacate the suspended sentence. If the
officer exercising jurisdiction decides to
vacate the suspended sentence, that
officer shall prepare a written statement
of the evidence relied on and the
reasons for vacating the suspended
sentence.’’
(tt) A new sentence is added to the
end of R.C.M. 1109(g)(1) and reads as
follows:
‘‘The purpose of the hearing is for the
hearing officer to determine whether
there is probable cause to believe that
the probationer violated the conditions
of the probationer’s suspension.’’
(uu) R.C.M. 1109(g)(3) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(3) Hearing. The procedure for the
vacation hearing shall follow that
prescribed in subsection (h) of this
rule.’’
(vv) A new sentence is added to the
end of R.C.M. 1109(g)(5) and reads as
follows:
‘‘This record shall include the
recommendation, the evidence relied
upon, and reasons for making the
decision.’’
(ww) R.C.M. 1109(g)(6) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(6) Decision. A commander with
authority to vacate the suspension shall
review the record produced by and the
recommendation of the person who
conducted the vacation proceeding,
decide whether there is probable cause
to believe that the probationer violated
a condition of the probationer’s
suspension, and, if so, decide whether
to vacate the suspended sentence. If the
officer exercising jurisdiction decides to
vacate the suspended sentence, that
officer shall prepare a written statement
of the evidence relied on and the
reasons for vacating the suspended
sentence.’’
(xx) A new R.C.M. 1109(h) is inserted
and reads as follows:
‘‘(h) Hearing procedure.
(1) Generally. The hearing shall begin
with the hearing officer informing the
probationer of the probationer’s rights.
The government will then present
evidence. Upon the conclusion of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
government’s presentation of evidence,
the probationer may present evidence.
The probationer shall have full
opportunity to present any matters in
defense, extenuation, or mitigation.
Both the government and probationer
shall be afforded an opportunity to
cross-examine adverse witnesses. The
hearing officer may also question
witnesses called by the parties.
(2) Rules of evidence. The Military
Rules of Evidence—other than Mil. R.
Evid. 301, 302, 303, 305, 412, and
Section V—shall not apply. Nor shall
Mil. R. Evid. 412(b)(1)(C) apply. In
applying these rules to a vacation
hearing, the term ‘‘military judge,’’ as
used in these rules, shall mean the
hearing officer, who shall assume the
military judge’s authority to exclude
evidence from the hearing, and who
shall, in discharging this duty, follow
the procedures set forth in these rules.
However, the hearing officer is not
authorized to order production of
communications covered by Mil. R.
Evid. 513 or 514.
(3) Production of witnesses and other
evidence. The procedure for the
production of witnesses and other
evidence shall follow that prescribed in
R.C.M. 405(g), except that R.C.M.
405(g)(3)(B) shall not apply. The hearing
officer shall only consider testimony
and other evidence that is relevant to
the limited purpose of the hearing.
(4) Presentation of testimony. Witness
testimony may be provided in person,
by video teleconference, by telephone,
or by similar means of remote
testimony. All testimony shall be taken
under oath, except that the probationer
may make an unsworn statement.
(5) Other evidence. If relevant to the
limited purpose of the hearing, and not
cumulative, a hearing officer may
consider other evidence, in addition to
or in lieu of witness testimony,
including statements, tangible evidence,
or reproductions thereof, offered by
either side, that the hearing officer
determines is reliable. This other
evidence need not be sworn.
(6) Presence of probationer. The
taking of evidence shall not be
prevented and the probationer shall be
considered to have waived the right to
be present whenever the probationer:
(A) After being notified of the time
and place of the proceeding is
voluntarily absent; or
(B) After being warned by the hearing
officer that disruptive conduct will
cause removal from the proceeding,
persists in conduct that is such as to
justify exclusion from the proceeding.
(7) Objections. Any objection alleging
failure to comply with these rules shall
be made to the convening authority via
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the hearing officer. The hearing officer
shall include a record of all objections
in the written recommendations to the
convening authority.
(8) Access by spectators. Vacation
hearings are public proceedings and
should remain open to the public
whenever possible. The convening
authority who directed the hearing or
the hearing officer may restrict or
foreclose access by spectators to all or
part of the proceedings if an overriding
interest exists that outweighs the value
of an open hearing. Examples of
overriding interests may include:
Preventing psychological harm or
trauma to a child witness or an alleged
victim of a sexual crime, protecting the
safety or privacy of a witness or alleged
victim, protecting classified material,
and receiving evidence where a witness
is incapable of testifying in an open
setting. Any closure must be narrowly
tailored to achieve the overriding
interest that justified the closure.
Convening authorities or hearing
officers must conclude that no lesser
methods short of closing the hearing can
be used to protect the overriding interest
in the case. Convening authorities or
hearing officers must conduct a case-bycase, witness-by-witness, circumstanceby-circumstance analysis of whether
closure is necessary. If a convening
authority or hearing officer believes
closing the hearing is necessary, the
convening authority or hearing officer
must make specific findings of fact in
writing that support the closure. The
written findings of fact must be
included in the record.
(9) Victim’s rights. Any victim of the
underlying offense for which the
probationer received the suspended
sentence, or any victim of the alleged
offense that is the subject of the vacation
hearing, has the right to reasonable,
accurate, and timely notice of the
vacation hearing. For purposes of this
rule, the term ‘‘victim’’ is defined as an
individual who has suffered direct
physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm
as a result of the commission of an
offense.’’
(yy) A new R.C.M. 1203(g) is inserted
and reads as follows:
‘‘(g) Article 6b(e) petition for writ of
mandamus. The Judge Advocates
General shall establish the means by
which the petitions for writs of
mandamus described in Article 6b(e) are
forwarded to the Courts of Criminal
Appeals in accordance with their rulemaking functions of Article 66(f).’’
Sec. 2. Part III of the Manual for
Courts-Martial, United States, is
amended as follows:
(a) Mil. R. Evid. 304(c) is amended to
read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM
22MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Notices
‘‘(c) Corroboration of a Confession or
Admission.
(1) An admission or a confession of
the accused may be considered as
evidence against the accused on the
question of guilt or innocence only if
independent evidence, either direct or
circumstantial, has been admitted into
evidence that would tend to establish
the trustworthiness of the admission or
confession.
(2) Other uncorroborated confessions
or admissions of the accused that would
themselves require corroboration may
not be used to supply this independent
evidence. If the independent evidence
raises an inference of the truth of the
admission or confession, then it may be
considered as evidence against the
accused. Not every element or fact
contained in the confession or
admission must be independently
proven for the confession or admission
to be admitted into evidence in its
entirety.
(3) Corroboration is not required for a
statement made by the accused before
the court by which the accused is being
tried, for statements made prior to or
contemporaneously with the act, or for
statements offered under a rule of
evidence other than that pertaining to
the admissibility of admissions or
confessions.
(4) Quantum of Evidence Needed. The
independent evidence necessary to
establish corroboration need not be
sufficient of itself to establish beyond a
reasonable doubt the truth of facts stated
in the admission or confession. The
independent evidence need raise only
an inference of the truth of the
admission or confession. The amount
and type of evidence introduced as
corroboration is a factor to be
considered by the trier of fact in
determining the weight, if any, to be
given to the admission or confession.
(5) Procedure. The military judge
alone is to determine when adequate
evidence of corroboration has been
received. Corroborating evidence must
be introduced before the admission or
confession is introduced unless the
military judge allows submission of
such evidence subject to later
corroboration.’’
(b) Mil. R. Evid. 311(a) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘(a) General rule. Evidence obtained
as a result of an unlawful search or
seizure made by a person acting in a
governmental capacity is inadmissible
against the accused if:
(1) the accused makes a timely motion
to suppress or an objection to the
evidence under this rule;
(2) the accused had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the person,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
place or property searched; the accused
had a legitimate interest in the property
or evidence seized when challenging a
seizure; or the accused would otherwise
have grounds to object to the search or
seizure under the Constitution of the
United States as applied to members of
the Armed Forces; and
(3) exclusion of the evidence results
in appreciable deterrence of future
unlawful searches or seizures and the
benefits of such deterrence outweigh the
costs to the justice system.’’
(c) A new Mil. R. Evid. 311(c)(4) is
inserted and reads as follows:
‘‘(4) Reliance on Statute. Evidence
that was obtained as a result of an
unlawful search or seizure may be used
when the official seeking the evidence
acts in objectively reasonable reliance
on a statute later held violative of the
Fourth Amendment.’’
(d) Mil. R. Evid. 311(d)(5)(A) is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘(A) In general. When the defense
makes an appropriate motion or
objection under subdivision (d), the
prosecution has the burden of proving
by a preponderance of the evidence that
the evidence was not obtained as a
result of an unlawful search or seizure,
that the evidence would have been
obtained even if the unlawful search or
seizure had not been made, that the
evidence was obtained by officials who
reasonably and with good faith relied on
the issuance of an authorization to
search, seize, or apprehend or a search
warrant or an arrest warrant; that the
evidence was obtained by officials in
objectively reasonable reliance on a
statute later held violative of the Fourth
Amendment; or that the deterrence of
future unlawful searches or seizures is
not appreciable or such deterrence does
not outweigh the costs to the justice
system of excluding the evidence.’’
(e) Mil. R. Evid. 414(d)(2)(A) is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘(A) any conduct prohibited by
Article 120 and committed with a child,
or prohibited by Article 120b.’’
(f) Mil. R. Evid. 504 is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘Rule 504. Marital privilege
(a) Spousal Incapacity. A person has
a privilege to refuse to testify against his
or her spouse. There is no privilege
under subdivision (a) when, at the time
of the testimony, the parties are
divorced, or the marriage has been
annulled.
(b) Confidential Communication
Made During the Marriage.
(1) General Rule. A person has a
privilege during and after the marital
relationship to refuse to disclose, and to
prevent another from disclosing, any
confidential communication made to
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15277
the spouse of the person while they
were married and not separated as
provided by law.
(2) Who May Claim the Privilege. The
privilege may be claimed by the spouse
who made the communication or by the
other spouse on his or her behalf. The
authority of the latter spouse to do so is
presumed in the absence of evidence of
a waiver. The privilege will not prevent
disclosure of the communication at the
request of the spouse to whom the
communication was made if that spouse
is an accused regardless of whether the
spouse who made the communication
objects to its disclosure.
(c) Exceptions.
(1) To Confidential Communications
Only. Where both parties have been
substantial participants in illegal
activity, those communications between
the spouses during the marriage
regarding the illegal activity in which
they have jointly participated are not
marital communications for purposes of
the privilege in subdivision (b) and are
not entitled to protection under the
privilege in subdivision (b).
(2) To Spousal Incapacity and
Confidential Communications. There is
no privilege under subdivisions (a) or
(b):
(A) In proceedings in which one
spouse is charged with a crime against
the person or property of the other
spouse or a child of either, or with a
crime against the person or property of
a third person committed in the course
of committing a crime against the other
spouse;
(B) When the marital relationship was
entered into with no intention of the
parties to live together as spouses, but
only for the purpose of using the
purported marital relationship as a
sham, and with respect to the privilege
in subdivision (a), the relationship
remains a sham at the time the
testimony or statement of one of the
parties is to be introduced against the
other; or with respect to the privilege in
subdivision (b), the relationship was a
sham at the time of the communication;
or
(C) In proceedings in which a spouse
is charged, in accordance with Article
133 or 134, with importing the other
spouse as an alien for prostitution or
other immoral purpose in violation of 8
U.S.C. 1328; with transporting the other
spouse in interstate commerce for
prostitution, immoral purposes, or
another offense in violation of 18 U.S.C.
2421–2424; or with violation of such
other similar statutes under which such
privilege may not be claimed in the trial
of criminal cases in the United States
district courts.
(d) Definitions. As used in this rule:
E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM
22MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
15278
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Notices
(1) ‘‘A child of either’’ means a
biological child, adopted child, or ward
of one of the spouses and includes a
child who is under the permanent or
temporary physical custody of one of
the spouses, regardless of the existence
of a legal parent-child relationship. For
purposes of this rule only, a child is:
(A) An individual under the age of 18;
or
(B) an individual with a mental
handicap who functions under the age
of 18.
(2) ‘‘Temporary physical custody’’
means a parent has entrusted his or her
child with another. There is no
minimum amount of time necessary to
establish temporary physical custody,
nor is a written agreement required.
Rather, the focus is on the parent’s
agreement with another for assuming
parental responsibility for the child. For
example, temporary physical custody
may include instances where a parent
entrusts another with the care of his or
her child for recurring care or during
absences due to temporary duty or
deployments.
(3) As used in this rule, a
communication is ‘‘confidential’’ if
made privately by any person to the
spouse of the person and is not intended
to be disclosed to third persons other
than those reasonably necessary for
transmission of the communication.’’
(g) Mil. R. Evid. 505(e)(2) is amended
by replacing ‘‘investigating officer’’ with
‘‘preliminary hearing officer.’’
(h) Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘(B) is consistent with the declarant’s
testimony and is offered:
(i) to rebut an express or implied
charge that the declarant recently
fabricated it or acted from a recent
improper influence or motive in so
testifying; or
(ii) to rehabilitate the declarant’s
credibility as a witness when attacked
on another ground; or’’
(i) The first sentence of Mil. R. Evid.
803(6)(E) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(E) the opponent does not show that
the source of information or the method
or circumstance of preparation indicate
a lack of trustworthiness.’’
(j) Mil. R. Evid. 803(7)(C) is amended
to read as follows:
‘‘(C) the opponent does not show that
the possible source of the information or
other circumstances indicate a lack of
trustworthiness.’’
(k) The first sentence of Mil. R. Evid.
803(8)(B) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(B) the opponent does not show that
the source of information or other
circumstances indicate a lack of
trustworthiness.’’
(l) Mil. R. Evid. 803(10)(B) is amended
to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:01 Mar 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
‘‘(B) a counsel for the government
who intends to offer a certification
provides written notice of that intent at
least 14 days before trial, and the
accused does not object in writing
within 7 days of receiving the notice—
unless the military judge sets a different
time for the notice or the objection.’’
(m) Mil. R. Evid. 804(b)(1)(B) is
amended by replacing ‘‘pretrial
investigation’’ with ‘‘preliminary
hearing.’’
(n) Mil. R. Evid. 1101(d)(2) is
amended by replacing ‘‘pretrial
investigations’’ with ‘‘preliminary
hearings.’’
Sec. 3. Part IV of the Manual for
Courts-Martial, United States, is
amended as follows:
(a) Paragraph 4, Article 80—Attempts,
subparagraph e. is amended to read as
follows:
‘‘e. Maximum punishment. Any
person subject to the code who is found
guilty of an attempt under Article 80 to
commit any offense punishable by the
code shall be subject to the same
maximum punishment authorized for
the commission of the offense
attempted, except that in no case shall
the death penalty be adjudged, and in
no case, other than attempted murder,
shall confinement exceeding 20 years be
adjudged. Except in the cases of
attempts of Article 120(a) or (b), rape or
sexual assault of a child under Article
120b(a) or (b), and forcible sodomy
under Article 125, mandatory minimum
punishment provisions shall not apply.’’
(b) Paragraph 57, Article 131—
Perjury, subparagraph c.(1) is amended
by replacing ‘‘an investigation’’ with ‘‘a
preliminary hearing.’’
(c) Paragraph 57, Article 131—
Perjury, subparagraph c.(3) is amended
by replacing ‘‘investigation’’ with
‘‘preliminary hearing.’’
(d) Paragraph 96, Article 134—
Obstructing justice, subparagraph f. is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘f. Sample specification. In that
(personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on
board—location) (subject-matter
jurisdiction data, if required), on or
about 20, wrongfully (endeavor to)
(impede (a trial by court-martial) (an
investigation) (a preliminary hearing)
(ll)) [influence the actions of ll, (a
trial counsel of the court-martial) (a
defense counsel of the court-martial) (an
officer responsible for making a
recommendation concerning disposition
of charges) (ll)] [(influence) (alter) the
testimony of llas a witness before a
(court-martial) (an investigating officer)
(a preliminary hearing) (ll)] in the
case of llby [(promising) (offering)
(giving) to the said, (the sum of $)
(ll, of a value of about $)]
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[communicating to the said lla threat
to ll] [ll], (if) (unless) he/she, the
said ll, would [recommend dismissal
of the charges against said ll]
[(wrongfully refuse to testify) (testify
falsely concerning ll) (ll)] [(at such
trial) (before such investigating officer)
(before such preliminary hearing
officer)] [ll].’’
(e) Paragraph 108, Testify: Wrongful
refusal, subparagraph f. is amended by
replacing ‘‘officer conducting an
investigation under Article 32, Uniform
Code of Military Justice’’ with ‘‘officer
conducting a preliminary hearing under
Article 32, Uniform Code of Military
Justice.’’
(f) Paragraph 110, Article 134—
Threat, communicating, subparagraph c.
is amended to read as follows:
‘‘c. Explanation. For purposes of this
paragraph, to establish that the
communication was wrongful it is
necessary that the accused transmitted
the communication for the purpose of
issuing a threat, with the knowledge
that the communication would be
viewed as a threat, or acted recklessly
with regard to whether the
communication would be viewed as a
threat. However, it is not necessary to
establish that the accused actually
intended to do the injury threatened.
Nor is the offense committed by the
mere statement of intent to commit an
unlawful act not involving injury to
another. See also paragraph 109, Threat
or hoax designed or intended to cause
panic or public fear.’’
Dated: March 17, 2016.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2016–06393 Filed 3–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Manual for Courts-Martial;
Amendments to Appendix 22
Joint Service Committee on
Military Justice (JSC), Department of
Defense.
ACTION: Publication of Discussion and
Analysis (Supplementary Materials)
accompanying the Manual for CourtsMartial, United States (2012 ed.) (MCM).
AGENCY:
The JSC hereby publishes
Supplementary Materials accompanying
the MCM as amended by Executive
Orders 13643, 13669, and 13696. These
changes have not been coordinated
within the Department of Defense under
DoD Directive 5500.1, ‘‘Preparation,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM
22MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15272-15278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06393]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DOD-2015-OS-0099]
Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed Amendments
AGENCY: Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC), Department
of Defense.
ACTION: Notice of response to public comments on proposed amendments to
the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2012 ed.) (MCM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The JSC is publishing final proposed amendments to the MCM.
The proposed changes concern the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military
Rules of Evidence, and the punitive articles applicable in trials by
courts-martial. These proposed changes have not been coordinated within
the Department of Defense under DoD Directive 5500.1, ``Preparation,
Processing and Coordinating Legislation, Executive Orders,
Proclamations, Views Letters and Testimony,'' June 15, 2007, and do not
constitute the official position of the Department of Defense, the
Military Departments, or any other Government agency.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Major Harlye Carlton, USMC, JSC
Executive Secretary, at harlye.carlton@usmc.mil. The JSC public Web
site is located at https://jsc.defense.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments: Comments and materials received from the public
are available under Docket ID Number DOD-2015-OS-0099, Federal Register
Number 2015-26485, and at the following link: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2015-OS-0099.
Background
On October 19, 2015 (80 FR 63204-63212), the JSC published a Notice
of Proposed Amendments concerning the rules of procedure and evidence
and the punitive articles applicable in trials by courts-martial and a
Notice of Public Meeting to receive comments on these proposals. The
public meeting was held on November 5, 2015. No comments were received
at the public meeting. The 60-day public comment period for the notice
closed on December 18, 2015. One public comment was received.
The JSC considered the public comments and after conducting
deliberations, made no modifications to the proposed amendments to the
MCM as a result of the public comments. The JSC conducted additional
internal deliberations and made some modifications to the proposed
amendments to the MCM accordingly. Comments that were submitted that
are outside the scope of the originally-proposed changes will be
considered as part of the JSC 2016 annual review of the MCM.
Proposed Amendments After Period for Public Comment
The proposed recommended amendments to the MCM that have been
forwarded through the DoD for action by Executive Order of the
President of the United States are as follows:
Section 1. Part II of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States,
is amended as follows:
(a) The title of R.C.M. 104(b)(1) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Evaluation of member, defense counsel, or special victims'
counsel.''
(b) R.C.M. 104(b)(1)(B) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) Give a less favorable rating or evaluation of any defense
counsel or special victims' counsel because of the zeal with which such
counsel represented any client. As used in this rule, ``special
victims' counsel'' are judge advocates who, in accordance with 10
U.S.C. 1044e, are designated as Special Victims' Counsel by the Judge
Advocate General of the armed force in which the judge advocates are
members, and within the Marine Corps, by the Staff Judge Advocate to
the Commandant of the Marine Corps.''
(c) R.C.M. 305(h)(2)(B)(iii)(a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) The prisoner will not appear at trial, pretrial hearing,
preliminary hearing, or investigation, or''
[[Page 15273]]
(d) R.C.M. 305(i)(2)(A)(iv) is amended to read as follows:
``(iv) Victim's right to be reasonably heard. A victim of an
alleged offense committed by the prisoner has the right to reasonable,
accurate, and timely notice of the 7-day review; the right to confer
with the representative of the command and counsel for the government,
if any; and the right to be reasonably heard during the review.
However, the hearing may not be unduly delayed for this purpose. The
right to be heard under this rule includes the right to be heard
through counsel and the right to be reasonably protected from the
prisoner during the 7-day review. The victim of an alleged offense
shall be notified of these rights in accordance with regulations of the
Secretary concerned.''
(e) A new R.C.M. 306(e) is inserted and reads as follows:
``(e) Sex-related offenses.
(1) For purposes of this subsection, a ``sex-related offense''
means any allegation of a violation of Article 120, 120a, 120b, 120c,
or 125 or any attempt thereof under Article 80, UCMJ.
(2) Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may
prescribe, for alleged sex-related offenses committed in the United
States, the victim of the sex-related offense shall be provided an
opportunity to express views as to whether the offense should be
prosecuted by court-martial or in a civilian court with jurisdiction
over the offense. The commander, and if charges are preferred, the
convening authority, shall consider such views as to the victim's
preference for jurisdiction, if available, prior to making an initial
disposition decision. For purposes of this rule, ``victim'' is defined
as an individual who has suffered direct physical, emotional, or
pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of an alleged sex-related
offense as defined in subparagraph (A) of this rule.
(3) Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may
prescribe, if the victim of an alleged sex-related offense expresses a
preference for prosecution of the offense in a civilian court, the
commander, and if charges are preferred, the convening authority, shall
ensure that the civilian authority with jurisdiction over the offense
is notified of the victim's preference for civilian prosecution. If the
commander, and if charges are preferred, the convening authority learns
of any decision by the civilian authority to prosecute or not prosecute
the offense in civilian court, the convening authority shall ensure the
victim is notified.''
(f) R.C.M. 403(b)(5) is amended to read as follows:
``(5) Unless otherwise prescribed by the Secretary concerned,
direct a preliminary hearing under R.C.M. 405, and, if appropriate,
forward the report of preliminary hearing with the charges to a
superior commander for disposition.''
(g) R.C.M. 405(i)(2)(A) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Notice to and presence of the victim(s).
(A) The victim(s) of an offense under the UCMJ has the right to
reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of a preliminary hearing
relating to the alleged offense, the right to be reasonably protected
from the accused, and the reasonable right to confer with counsel for
the government during the preliminary hearing. For the purposes of this
rule, a ``victim'' is a person who is alleged to have suffered a direct
physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of the matters set
forth in a charge or specification under consideration and is named in
one of the specifications under consideration.''
(h) R.C.M. 407(a)(5) is amended to read as follows:
``(5) Unless otherwise prescribed by the Secretary concerned,
direct a preliminary hearing under R.C.M. 405, after which additional
action under this rule may be taken;''
(i) R.C.M. 502(d)(4)(B) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) An investigating or preliminary hearing officer;''
(j) RCM 502(e)(2)(C) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) An investigating or preliminary hearing officer;''
(k) R.C.M. 506(b)(2) is amended by replacing ``investigation'' with
``preliminary hearing.''
(l) R.C.M 601(d)(2)(A) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) There has been substantial compliance with the preliminary
hearing requirements of R.C.M. 405; and''
(m) R.C.M. 705(c)(2)(A) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) A promise to enter into a stipulation of fact concerning
offenses to which a plea of guilty or a confessional stipulation will
be entered;''
(n) R.C.M. 705(d)(3) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Acceptance.
(A) In general. The convening authority may either accept or reject
an offer of the accused to enter into a pretrial agreement or may
propose by counteroffer any terms or conditions not prohibited by law
or public policy. The decision whether to accept or reject an offer is
within the sole discretion of the convening authority. When the
convening authority has accepted a pretrial agreement, the agreement
shall be signed by the convening authority or by a person, such as the
staff judge advocate or trial counsel, who has been authorized by the
convening authority to sign.
(B) Victim consultation. Whenever practicable, prior to the
convening authority accepting a pretrial agreement the victim shall be
provided an opportunity to express views concerning the pretrial
agreement terms and conditions in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary concerned. The convening authority shall
consider any such views provided prior to accepting a pretrial
agreement. For purposes of this rule, a ``victim'' is an individual who
is alleged to have suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary
harm as a result of the matters set forth in a charge or specification
under consideration and is named in one of the specifications under
consideration.''
(o) A new R.C.M. 806(b)(2) is inserted and reads as follows:
``(2) Right of victim to notice. A victim of an alleged offense
committed by the accused has the right to reasonable, accurate, and
timely notice of court-martial proceedings relating to the offense.''
(p) R.C.M. 806(b)(2) is renumbered as R.C.M. 806(b)(3).
(q) R.C.M. 806(b)(3) is renumbered as R.C.M. 806(b)(4).
(r) R.C.M. 806(b)(4) is renumbered as R.C.M. 806(b)(5).
(s) A new R.C.M. 806(b)(6) is inserted and reads as follows:
``(6) Right of victim to be reasonably protected from the accused.
A victim of an alleged offense committed by the accused has the right
to be reasonably protected from the accused.''
(t) R.C.M. 902(b)(2) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Where the military judge has acted as counsel, preliminary
hearing officer, investigating officer, legal officer, staff judge
advocate, or convening authority as to any offense charged or in the
same case generally.''
(u) R.C.M. 905(b)(1) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Defenses or objections based on defects (other than
jurisdictional defects) in the preferral, forwarding, or referral of
charges, or in the preliminary hearing;''
(v) R.C.M. 907(b)(1) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Nonwaivable grounds. A charge or specification shall be
dismissed at any stage of the proceedings if the court-martial lacks
jurisdiction to try the accused for the offense.''
(w) R.C.M. 907(b)(1)(A)-(B) is deleted.
[[Page 15274]]
(x) A new R.C.M. 907(b)(2)(E) is inserted and reads as follows:
``(E) The specification fails to state an offense.''
(y) R.C.M. 912(a)(1)(K) is amended to read as follows:
``(K) Whether the member has acted as accuser, counsel, preliminary
hearing officer, investigating officer, convening authority, or legal
officer or staff judge advocate for the convening authority in the
case, or has forwarded the charges with a recommendation as to
disposition.''
(z) R.C.M. 912(f)(1)(F) is amended to read as follows:
``(F) Has been an investigating or preliminary hearing officer as
to any offense charged;''
(aa) R.C.M. 1002 is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Generally. Subject to limitations in this Manual, the
sentence to be adjudged is a matter within the discretion of the court-
martial; except when a mandatory minimum sentence is prescribed by the
code, a court-martial may adjudge any punishment authorized in this
Manual, including the maximum punishment or any lesser punishment, or
may adjudge a sentence of no punishment.
(b) Unitary Sentencing. Sentencing by a court-martial is unitary.
The court-martial will adjudge a single sentence for all the offenses
of which the accused was found guilty. A court-martial may not impose
separate sentences for each finding of guilty, but may impose only a
single, unitary sentence covering all of the guilty findings in their
entirety.''
(bb) R.C.M. 1103(b)(2)(B)(i) is amended to read as follows:
``(i) The sentence adjudged includes confinement for twelve months
or more or any punishment that may not be adjudged by a special court-
martial; or''
(cc) The Note currently located immediately following the title of
R.C.M. 1107 and prior to R.C.M. 1107(a) is amended to read as follows:
``[Note: R.C.M. 1107(b)-(f) apply to offenses committed on or after
24 June 2014; however, if at least one offense resulting in a finding
of guilty in a case occurred prior to 24 June 2014, or includes a date
range where the earliest date in the range for that offense is before
24 June 2014, then the prior version of R.C.M. 1107 applies to all
offenses in the case, except that mandatory minimum sentences under
Article 56(b) and applicable rules under R.C.M. 1107(d)(1)(D)-(E) still
apply.]''
(dd) R.C.M. 1107(b)(5) is amended to delete the sentence, ``Nothing
in this subsection shall prohibit the convening authority from
disapproving the findings of guilty and sentence.''
(ee) R.C.M. 1107(c) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Action on findings. Action on the findings is not required.
However, the convening authority may take action subject to the
following limitations:
(1) Where a court-martial includes a finding of guilty for an
offense listed in subparagraph (c)(1)(A) of this rule, the convening
authority may not take the actions listed in subparagraph (c)(1)(B) of
this rule:
(A) Offenses
(i) Article 120(a) or (b), Article 120b, or Article 125;
(ii) Offenses for which the maximum sentence of confinement that
may be adjudged exceeds two years without regard to the jurisdictional
limits of the court; or
(iii) Offenses where the adjudged sentence for the case includes
dismissal, dishonorable discharge, bad-conduct discharge, or
confinement for more than six months.
(B) Prohibited actions
(i) Dismiss a charge or specification by setting aside a finding of
guilty thereto; or
(ii) Change a finding of guilty to a charge or specification to a
finding of guilty to an offense that is a lesser included offense of
the offense stated in the charge or specification.
(2) The convening authority may direct a rehearing in accordance
with subsection (e) of this rule.
(3) For offenses other than those listed in subparagraph (c)(1)(A)
of this rule:
(A) The convening authority may change a finding of guilty to a
charge or specification to a finding of guilty to an offense that is a
lesser included offense of the offense stated in the charge or
specification; or
(B) Set aside any finding of guilty and:
(i) Dismiss the specification and, if appropriate, the charge; or
(ii) Direct a rehearing in accordance with subsection (e) of this
rule.
(4) If the convening authority acts to dismiss or change any charge
or specification for an offense, the convening authority shall provide,
at the same time, a written explanation of the reasons for such action.
The written explanation shall be made a part of the record of trial and
action thereon.''
(ff) R.C.M. 1107(d) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Action on the sentence.
(1) The convening authority shall take action on the sentence
subject to the following:
(A) The convening authority may disapprove, commute, or suspend, in
whole or in part, any portion of an adjudged sentence not explicitly
prohibited by this rule, to include reduction in pay grade, forfeitures
of pay and allowances, fines, reprimands, restrictions, and hard labor
without confinement.
(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (d)(1)(C) of this rule, the
convening authority may not disapprove, commute, or suspend, in whole
or in part, that portion of an adjudged sentence that includes:
(i) confinement for more than six months; or
(ii) dismissal, dishonorable discharge, or bad-conduct discharge.
(C) Exceptions
(i) Trial counsel recommendation. Upon the recommendation of the
trial counsel, in recognition of the substantial assistance by the
accused in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has
committed an offense, the convening authority or another person
authorized to act under this rule shall have the authority to
disapprove, commute, or suspend the adjudged sentence, in whole or in
part, even with respect to an offense for which a mandatory minimum
sentence exists.
(ii) Pretrial agreement. If a pretrial agreement has been entered
into by the convening authority and the accused, as authorized by
R.C.M. 705, the convening authority or another person authorized to act
under this rule shall have the authority to approve, disapprove,
commute, or suspend a sentence, in whole or in part, pursuant to the
terms of the pretrial agreement. However, if a mandatory minimum
sentence of a dishonorable discharge applies to an offense for which an
accused has been convicted, the convening authority or another person
authorized to act under this rule may commute the dishonorable
discharge to a bad-conduct discharge pursuant to the terms of the
pretrial agreement.
(D) If the convening authority acts to disapprove, commute, or
suspend, in whole or in part, the sentence of the court-martial for an
offense listed in subparagraph (c)(1)(A) of this rule, the convening
authority shall provide, at the same time, a written explanation of the
reasons for such action. The written explanation shall be made a part
of the record of trial and action thereon.''
(gg) R.C.M. 1107(e) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Ordering rehearing or other trial.
(1) Rehearings not permitted. A rehearing may not be ordered by the
convening authority where the adjudged sentence for the case includes a
sentence of dismissal, dishonorable discharge, or bad-conduct discharge
or confinement for more than six months.
(2) Rehearings permitted.
[[Page 15275]]
(A) In general. Subject to paragraph (e)(1) and subparagraphs
(e)(2)(B) through (e)(2)(E) of this rule, the convening authority may
in the convening authority's discretion order a rehearing. A rehearing
may be ordered as to some or all offenses of which findings of guilty
were entered and the sentence, or as to sentence only.
(B) When the convening authority may order a rehearing. The
convening authority may order a rehearing:
(i) When taking action on the court-martial under this rule. Prior
to ordering a rehearing on a finding, the convening authority must
disapprove the applicable finding and the sentence and state the
reasons for disapproval of said finding. Prior to ordering a rehearing
on the sentence, the convening authority must disapprove the sentence.
(ii) When authorized to do so by superior competent authority. If
the convening authority finds a rehearing as to any offenses
impracticable, the convening authority may dismiss those specifications
and, when appropriate, charges.
(iii) Sentence reassessment. If a superior competent authority has
approved some of the findings of guilty and has authorized a rehearing
as to other offenses and the sentence, the convening authority may,
unless otherwise directed, reassess the sentence based on the approved
findings of guilty and dismiss the remaining charges. Reassessment is
appropriate only where the convening authority determines that the
accused's sentence would have been at least of a certain magnitude had
the prejudicial error not been committed and the reassessed sentence is
appropriate in relation to the affirmed findings of guilty.''
(C) Limitations.
(i) Sentence approved. A rehearing shall not be ordered if, in the
same action, a sentence is approved.
(ii) Lack of sufficient evidence. A rehearing may not be ordered as
to findings of guilty when there is a lack of sufficient evidence in
the record to support the findings of guilty of the offense charged or
of any lesser included offense. A rehearing may be ordered, however, if
the proof of guilt consisted of inadmissible evidence for which there
is available an admissible substitute. A rehearing may be ordered as to
any lesser offense included in an offense of which the accused was
found guilty, provided there is sufficient evidence in the record to
support the lesser included offense.
(iii) Rehearing on sentence only. A rehearing on sentence only
shall not be referred to a different kind of court-martial from that
which made the original findings. If the convening authority determines
a rehearing on sentence is impracticable, the convening authority may
approve a sentence of no punishment without conducting a rehearing.
(D) Additional charges. Additional charges may be referred for
trial together with charges as to which a rehearing has been directed.
(E) Lesser included offenses. If at a previous trial the accused
was convicted of a lesser included offense, a rehearing may be ordered
only as to that included offense or as to an offense included in that
found. If, however, a rehearing is ordered improperly on the original
offense charged and the accused is convicted of that offense at the
rehearing, the finding as to the lesser included offense of which the
accused was convicted at the original trial may nevertheless be
approved.
(3) ``Other'' trial. The convening or higher authority may order an
``other'' trial if the original proceedings were invalid because of
lack of jurisdiction or failure of a specification to state an offense.
The authority ordering an ``other'' trial shall state in the action the
basis for declaring the proceedings invalid.''
(hh) The Note currently located immediately following the title of
R.C.M. 1108(b) and prior to the first line, ``The convening authority
may . . .'', is amended to read as follows:
``[Note: R.C.M. 1108(b) applies to offenses committed on or after
24 June 2014; however, if at least one offense in a case occurred prior
to 24 June 2014, then the prior version of R.C.M. 1108(b) applies to
all offenses in the case.]''
(ii) R.C.M. 1109(a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In general. Suspension of execution of the sentence of a
court-martial may be vacated for violation of any condition of the
suspension as provided in this rule.''
(jj) R.C.M. 1109(c)(4)(A) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) Rights of probationer. Before the preliminary hearing, the
probationer shall be notified in writing of:''
(kk) R.C.M. 1109(c)(4)(C) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Decision. The hearing officer shall determine whether there
is probable cause to believe that the probationer violated the
conditions of the probationer's suspension. If the hearing officer
determines that probable cause is lacking, the hearing officer shall
issue a written order directing that the probationer be released from
confinement. If the hearing officer determines that there is probable
cause to believe that the probationer violated a condition of
suspension, the hearing officer shall set forth this determination in a
written memorandum that details therein the evidence relied upon and
reasons for making the decision. The hearing officer shall forward the
original memorandum or release order to the probationer's commander and
forward a copy to the probationer and the officer in charge of the
confinement facility.''
(ll) A new sentence is added to the end of R.C.M. 1109(d)(1)(A) and
reads as follows:
``The purpose of the hearing is for the hearing officer to
determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the
probationer violated a condition of the probationer's suspension.''
(mm) R.C.M. 1109(d)(1)(C) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Hearing. The procedure for the vacation hearing shall follow
that prescribed in subsection (h) of this rule.''
(nn) A new sentence is added to the end of R.C.M. 1109(d)(1)(D) and
reads as follows:
``This record shall include the recommendation, the evidence relied
upon, and reasons for making the decision.''
(oo) R.C.M. 1109(d)(2)(A) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general. The officer exercising general court-martial
jurisdiction over the probationer shall review the record produced by
and the recommendation of the officer exercising special court-martial
jurisdiction over the probationer, decide whether there is probable
cause to believe that the probationer violated a condition of the
probationer's suspension, and, if so, decide whether to vacate the
suspended sentence. If the officer exercising general court-martial
jurisdiction decides to vacate the suspended sentence, that officer
shall prepare a written statement of the evidence relied on and the
reasons for vacating the suspended sentence.''
(pp) A new sentence is added to the end of R.C.M. 1109(e)(1) and
reads as follows:
``The purpose of the hearing is for the hearing officer to
determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the
probationer violated the conditions of the probationer's suspension.''
(qq) R.C.M. 1109(e)(3) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Hearing. The procedure for the vacation hearing shall follow
that prescribed in subsection (h) of this rule.''
(rr) A new sentence is added to the end of R.C.M. 1109(e)(5) and
reads as follows:
[[Page 15276]]
``This record shall include the recommendation, the evidence relied
upon, and reasons for making the decision.''
(ss) R.C.M. 1109(e)(6) is amended to read as follows:
``(6) Decision. The special court-martial convening authority shall
review the record produced by and the recommendation of the person who
conducted the vacation proceeding, decide whether there is probable
cause to believe that the probationer violated a condition of the
probationer's suspension, and, if so, decide whether to vacate the
suspended sentence. If the officer exercising jurisdiction decides to
vacate the suspended sentence, that officer shall prepare a written
statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for vacating the
suspended sentence.''
(tt) A new sentence is added to the end of R.C.M. 1109(g)(1) and
reads as follows:
``The purpose of the hearing is for the hearing officer to
determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the
probationer violated the conditions of the probationer's suspension.''
(uu) R.C.M. 1109(g)(3) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Hearing. The procedure for the vacation hearing shall follow
that prescribed in subsection (h) of this rule.''
(vv) A new sentence is added to the end of R.C.M. 1109(g)(5) and
reads as follows:
``This record shall include the recommendation, the evidence relied
upon, and reasons for making the decision.''
(ww) R.C.M. 1109(g)(6) is amended to read as follows:
``(6) Decision. A commander with authority to vacate the suspension
shall review the record produced by and the recommendation of the
person who conducted the vacation proceeding, decide whether there is
probable cause to believe that the probationer violated a condition of
the probationer's suspension, and, if so, decide whether to vacate the
suspended sentence. If the officer exercising jurisdiction decides to
vacate the suspended sentence, that officer shall prepare a written
statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for vacating the
suspended sentence.''
(xx) A new R.C.M. 1109(h) is inserted and reads as follows:
``(h) Hearing procedure.
(1) Generally. The hearing shall begin with the hearing officer
informing the probationer of the probationer's rights. The government
will then present evidence. Upon the conclusion of the government's
presentation of evidence, the probationer may present evidence. The
probationer shall have full opportunity to present any matters in
defense, extenuation, or mitigation. Both the government and
probationer shall be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine adverse
witnesses. The hearing officer may also question witnesses called by
the parties.
(2) Rules of evidence. The Military Rules of Evidence--other than
Mil. R. Evid. 301, 302, 303, 305, 412, and Section V--shall not apply.
Nor shall Mil. R. Evid. 412(b)(1)(C) apply. In applying these rules to
a vacation hearing, the term ``military judge,'' as used in these
rules, shall mean the hearing officer, who shall assume the military
judge's authority to exclude evidence from the hearing, and who shall,
in discharging this duty, follow the procedures set forth in these
rules. However, the hearing officer is not authorized to order
production of communications covered by Mil. R. Evid. 513 or 514.
(3) Production of witnesses and other evidence. The procedure for
the production of witnesses and other evidence shall follow that
prescribed in R.C.M. 405(g), except that R.C.M. 405(g)(3)(B) shall not
apply. The hearing officer shall only consider testimony and other
evidence that is relevant to the limited purpose of the hearing.
(4) Presentation of testimony. Witness testimony may be provided in
person, by video teleconference, by telephone, or by similar means of
remote testimony. All testimony shall be taken under oath, except that
the probationer may make an unsworn statement.
(5) Other evidence. If relevant to the limited purpose of the
hearing, and not cumulative, a hearing officer may consider other
evidence, in addition to or in lieu of witness testimony, including
statements, tangible evidence, or reproductions thereof, offered by
either side, that the hearing officer determines is reliable. This
other evidence need not be sworn.
(6) Presence of probationer. The taking of evidence shall not be
prevented and the probationer shall be considered to have waived the
right to be present whenever the probationer:
(A) After being notified of the time and place of the proceeding is
voluntarily absent; or
(B) After being warned by the hearing officer that disruptive
conduct will cause removal from the proceeding, persists in conduct
that is such as to justify exclusion from the proceeding.
(7) Objections. Any objection alleging failure to comply with these
rules shall be made to the convening authority via the hearing officer.
The hearing officer shall include a record of all objections in the
written recommendations to the convening authority.
(8) Access by spectators. Vacation hearings are public proceedings
and should remain open to the public whenever possible. The convening
authority who directed the hearing or the hearing officer may restrict
or foreclose access by spectators to all or part of the proceedings if
an overriding interest exists that outweighs the value of an open
hearing. Examples of overriding interests may include: Preventing
psychological harm or trauma to a child witness or an alleged victim of
a sexual crime, protecting the safety or privacy of a witness or
alleged victim, protecting classified material, and receiving evidence
where a witness is incapable of testifying in an open setting. Any
closure must be narrowly tailored to achieve the overriding interest
that justified the closure. Convening authorities or hearing officers
must conclude that no lesser methods short of closing the hearing can
be used to protect the overriding interest in the case. Convening
authorities or hearing officers must conduct a case-by-case, witness-
by-witness, circumstance-by-circumstance analysis of whether closure is
necessary. If a convening authority or hearing officer believes closing
the hearing is necessary, the convening authority or hearing officer
must make specific findings of fact in writing that support the
closure. The written findings of fact must be included in the record.
(9) Victim's rights. Any victim of the underlying offense for which
the probationer received the suspended sentence, or any victim of the
alleged offense that is the subject of the vacation hearing, has the
right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of the vacation
hearing. For purposes of this rule, the term ``victim'' is defined as
an individual who has suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary
harm as a result of the commission of an offense.''
(yy) A new R.C.M. 1203(g) is inserted and reads as follows:
``(g) Article 6b(e) petition for writ of mandamus. The Judge
Advocates General shall establish the means by which the petitions for
writs of mandamus described in Article 6b(e) are forwarded to the
Courts of Criminal Appeals in accordance with their rule-making
functions of Article 66(f).''
Sec. 2. Part III of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States,
is amended as follows:
(a) Mil. R. Evid. 304(c) is amended to read as follows:
[[Page 15277]]
``(c) Corroboration of a Confession or Admission.
(1) An admission or a confession of the accused may be considered
as evidence against the accused on the question of guilt or innocence
only if independent evidence, either direct or circumstantial, has been
admitted into evidence that would tend to establish the trustworthiness
of the admission or confession.
(2) Other uncorroborated confessions or admissions of the accused
that would themselves require corroboration may not be used to supply
this independent evidence. If the independent evidence raises an
inference of the truth of the admission or confession, then it may be
considered as evidence against the accused. Not every element or fact
contained in the confession or admission must be independently proven
for the confession or admission to be admitted into evidence in its
entirety.
(3) Corroboration is not required for a statement made by the
accused before the court by which the accused is being tried, for
statements made prior to or contemporaneously with the act, or for
statements offered under a rule of evidence other than that pertaining
to the admissibility of admissions or confessions.
(4) Quantum of Evidence Needed. The independent evidence necessary
to establish corroboration need not be sufficient of itself to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of facts stated in the
admission or confession. The independent evidence need raise only an
inference of the truth of the admission or confession. The amount and
type of evidence introduced as corroboration is a factor to be
considered by the trier of fact in determining the weight, if any, to
be given to the admission or confession.
(5) Procedure. The military judge alone is to determine when
adequate evidence of corroboration has been received. Corroborating
evidence must be introduced before the admission or confession is
introduced unless the military judge allows submission of such evidence
subject to later corroboration.''
(b) Mil. R. Evid. 311(a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) General rule. Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful
search or seizure made by a person acting in a governmental capacity is
inadmissible against the accused if:
(1) the accused makes a timely motion to suppress or an objection
to the evidence under this rule;
(2) the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the
person, place or property searched; the accused had a legitimate
interest in the property or evidence seized when challenging a seizure;
or the accused would otherwise have grounds to object to the search or
seizure under the Constitution of the United States as applied to
members of the Armed Forces; and
(3) exclusion of the evidence results in appreciable deterrence of
future unlawful searches or seizures and the benefits of such
deterrence outweigh the costs to the justice system.''
(c) A new Mil. R. Evid. 311(c)(4) is inserted and reads as follows:
``(4) Reliance on Statute. Evidence that was obtained as a result
of an unlawful search or seizure may be used when the official seeking
the evidence acts in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute later
held violative of the Fourth Amendment.''
(d) Mil. R. Evid. 311(d)(5)(A) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general. When the defense makes an appropriate motion or
objection under subdivision (d), the prosecution has the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence was not
obtained as a result of an unlawful search or seizure, that the
evidence would have been obtained even if the unlawful search or
seizure had not been made, that the evidence was obtained by officials
who reasonably and with good faith relied on the issuance of an
authorization to search, seize, or apprehend or a search warrant or an
arrest warrant; that the evidence was obtained by officials in
objectively reasonable reliance on a statute later held violative of
the Fourth Amendment; or that the deterrence of future unlawful
searches or seizures is not appreciable or such deterrence does not
outweigh the costs to the justice system of excluding the evidence.''
(e) Mil. R. Evid. 414(d)(2)(A) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) any conduct prohibited by Article 120 and committed with a
child, or prohibited by Article 120b.''
(f) Mil. R. Evid. 504 is amended to read as follows:
``Rule 504. Marital privilege
(a) Spousal Incapacity. A person has a privilege to refuse to
testify against his or her spouse. There is no privilege under
subdivision (a) when, at the time of the testimony, the parties are
divorced, or the marriage has been annulled.
(b) Confidential Communication Made During the Marriage.
(1) General Rule. A person has a privilege during and after the
marital relationship to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from
disclosing, any confidential communication made to the spouse of the
person while they were married and not separated as provided by law.
(2) Who May Claim the Privilege. The privilege may be claimed by
the spouse who made the communication or by the other spouse on his or
her behalf. The authority of the latter spouse to do so is presumed in
the absence of evidence of a waiver. The privilege will not prevent
disclosure of the communication at the request of the spouse to whom
the communication was made if that spouse is an accused regardless of
whether the spouse who made the communication objects to its
disclosure.
(c) Exceptions.
(1) To Confidential Communications Only. Where both parties have
been substantial participants in illegal activity, those communications
between the spouses during the marriage regarding the illegal activity
in which they have jointly participated are not marital communications
for purposes of the privilege in subdivision (b) and are not entitled
to protection under the privilege in subdivision (b).
(2) To Spousal Incapacity and Confidential Communications. There is
no privilege under subdivisions (a) or (b):
(A) In proceedings in which one spouse is charged with a crime
against the person or property of the other spouse or a child of
either, or with a crime against the person or property of a third
person committed in the course of committing a crime against the other
spouse;
(B) When the marital relationship was entered into with no
intention of the parties to live together as spouses, but only for the
purpose of using the purported marital relationship as a sham, and with
respect to the privilege in subdivision (a), the relationship remains a
sham at the time the testimony or statement of one of the parties is to
be introduced against the other; or with respect to the privilege in
subdivision (b), the relationship was a sham at the time of the
communication; or
(C) In proceedings in which a spouse is charged, in accordance with
Article 133 or 134, with importing the other spouse as an alien for
prostitution or other immoral purpose in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1328;
with transporting the other spouse in interstate commerce for
prostitution, immoral purposes, or another offense in violation of 18
U.S.C. 2421-2424; or with violation of such other similar statutes
under which such privilege may not be claimed in the trial of criminal
cases in the United States district courts.
(d) Definitions. As used in this rule:
[[Page 15278]]
(1) ``A child of either'' means a biological child, adopted child,
or ward of one of the spouses and includes a child who is under the
permanent or temporary physical custody of one of the spouses,
regardless of the existence of a legal parent-child relationship. For
purposes of this rule only, a child is:
(A) An individual under the age of 18; or
(B) an individual with a mental handicap who functions under the
age of 18.
(2) ``Temporary physical custody'' means a parent has entrusted his
or her child with another. There is no minimum amount of time necessary
to establish temporary physical custody, nor is a written agreement
required. Rather, the focus is on the parent's agreement with another
for assuming parental responsibility for the child. For example,
temporary physical custody may include instances where a parent
entrusts another with the care of his or her child for recurring care
or during absences due to temporary duty or deployments.
(3) As used in this rule, a communication is ``confidential'' if
made privately by any person to the spouse of the person and is not
intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those reasonably
necessary for transmission of the communication.''
(g) Mil. R. Evid. 505(e)(2) is amended by replacing ``investigating
officer'' with ``preliminary hearing officer.''
(h) Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered:
(i) to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant
recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or
motive in so testifying; or
(ii) to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness when
attacked on another ground; or''
(i) The first sentence of Mil. R. Evid. 803(6)(E) is amended to
read as follows:
``(E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or
the method or circumstance of preparation indicate a lack of
trustworthiness.''
(j) Mil. R. Evid. 803(7)(C) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) the opponent does not show that the possible source of the
information or other circumstances indicate a lack of
trustworthiness.''
(k) The first sentence of Mil. R. Evid. 803(8)(B) is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) the opponent does not show that the source of information or
other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.''
(l) Mil. R. Evid. 803(10)(B) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) a counsel for the government who intends to offer a
certification provides written notice of that intent at least 14 days
before trial, and the accused does not object in writing within 7 days
of receiving the notice--unless the military judge sets a different
time for the notice or the objection.''
(m) Mil. R. Evid. 804(b)(1)(B) is amended by replacing ``pretrial
investigation'' with ``preliminary hearing.''
(n) Mil. R. Evid. 1101(d)(2) is amended by replacing ``pretrial
investigations'' with ``preliminary hearings.''
Sec. 3. Part IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, is
amended as follows:
(a) Paragraph 4, Article 80--Attempts, subparagraph e. is amended
to read as follows:
``e. Maximum punishment. Any person subject to the code who is
found guilty of an attempt under Article 80 to commit any offense
punishable by the code shall be subject to the same maximum punishment
authorized for the commission of the offense attempted, except that in
no case shall the death penalty be adjudged, and in no case, other than
attempted murder, shall confinement exceeding 20 years be adjudged.
Except in the cases of attempts of Article 120(a) or (b), rape or
sexual assault of a child under Article 120b(a) or (b), and forcible
sodomy under Article 125, mandatory minimum punishment provisions shall
not apply.''
(b) Paragraph 57, Article 131--Perjury, subparagraph c.(1) is
amended by replacing ``an investigation'' with ``a preliminary
hearing.''
(c) Paragraph 57, Article 131--Perjury, subparagraph c.(3) is
amended by replacing ``investigation'' with ``preliminary hearing.''
(d) Paragraph 96, Article 134--Obstructing justice, subparagraph f.
is amended to read as follows:
``f. Sample specification. In that (personal jurisdiction data),
did, (at/on board--location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if
required), on or about 20, wrongfully (endeavor to) (impede (a trial by
court-martial) (an investigation) (a preliminary hearing) (__))
[influence the actions of __, (a trial counsel of the court-martial) (a
defense counsel of the court-martial) (an officer responsible for
making a recommendation concerning disposition of charges) (__)]
[(influence) (alter) the testimony of __as a witness before a (court-
martial) (an investigating officer) (a preliminary hearing) (__)] in
the case of __by [(promising) (offering) (giving) to the said, (the sum
of $) (__, of a value of about $)] [communicating to the said __a
threat to __] [__], (if) (unless) he/she, the said __, would [recommend
dismissal of the charges against said __] [(wrongfully refuse to
testify) (testify falsely concerning __) (__)] [(at such trial) (before
such investigating officer) (before such preliminary hearing officer)]
[__].''
(e) Paragraph 108, Testify: Wrongful refusal, subparagraph f. is
amended by replacing ``officer conducting an investigation under
Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice'' with ``officer
conducting a preliminary hearing under Article 32, Uniform Code of
Military Justice.''
(f) Paragraph 110, Article 134--Threat, communicating, subparagraph
c. is amended to read as follows:
``c. Explanation. For purposes of this paragraph, to establish that
the communication was wrongful it is necessary that the accused
transmitted the communication for the purpose of issuing a threat, with
the knowledge that the communication would be viewed as a threat, or
acted recklessly with regard to whether the communication would be
viewed as a threat. However, it is not necessary to establish that the
accused actually intended to do the injury threatened. Nor is the
offense committed by the mere statement of intent to commit an unlawful
act not involving injury to another. See also paragraph 109, Threat or
hoax designed or intended to cause panic or public fear.''
Dated: March 17, 2016.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2016-06393 Filed 3-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P