The Army Court of Criminal Appeals recently issued its opinion in the case of United States v. Lathrop. On September 26, 2023, SPC Lathrop pled guilty to three specifications of domestic violence at a special court-martial. Pursuant to his pretrial agreement, he was sentenced to ten months confinement and a bad-conduct discharge.
Following his court-martial, the defense submitted its clemency request within ten days, as required by the UCMJ. The Convening Authority took action on this request on December 1, 2023 and the Military Judge entered judgment and authenticated the Record of Trial by December 29, 2023. However, the Record was not mailed to the appellate court until April 5, 2024. When the Court received the Record, it was accompanied by a memorandum of post-trial delay. This memorandum noted only that a Memorandum For the Record (MFR) was signed by the Staff Judge Advocate on March 25, 2024, but provided no other explanation for the delay between December 29, 2023 and the mailing of the Record on April 5, 2024. The MFR only noted that the Staff Judge Advocate had sealed the clemency request as it included improper information–a decision that had been made prior to the Convening Authority’s Action on December 1, 2023.
SPC Lathrop raised the post-trial delay in his appeal to the Court, arguing that it constituted a violation of his constitutional right to due process. The Army Court examined the delay under two avenues for potential relief. The first is under a due process analysis. This analysis requires consideration of factors laid out in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). These Barker factors are: 1) the length of the delay; 2) the reason for the delay: 3) whether the appellant requested timely review; and 4) prejudice to the appellant from the delay. The Army Court found that the first two factors weighed in favor of SPC Lathrop. It found the 211 days between sentencing and the Court’s receipt of the Record to be unreasonable. It further found that the command provided no explanation for the delay. The third and fourth factors, however, weighed in favor of the Government. SPC Lathrop never made a request for a timely appellate review and provided no prejudice resulting from this delay. Without prejudice, the delay itself must be egregious for it to rise to the level of a due process violation. The majority of the Army Court determined that the delay in this case did not meet that bar, and thus there was no due process violation.
The Court then turned to its second avenue for relief in post-trial delay, its authority under Article 66(d)(2), UCMJ. This provision allows a Court of Criminal Appeals to provide relief where an appellant shows excessive delay in the processing of the court-martial after the judgement was entered. In this analysis, the Court considers the totality of the circumstances surrounding the post-trial processing for the individual case including the complexity of the case, the unavailability of personnel involved in the processing, and the unit’s memorialized reasons for delay. On this point, the Court found the 211-day delay, especially the unexplained 98 days between December 29, 2023 and April 5, 2024 to be excessive. The Court granted SPC Lathrop relief by reducing his sentence to confinement by 15 days.
If you or your loved one want to appeal a court-martial, you need someone with experience who knows what arguments to make on your behalf, and when to make them. I have argued this issue, and numerous others in front of appellate courts and CAAF. I have the experience you need. Please call Bill Cassara at (706) 860-5769 for a free consultation.