Summary Trial Question & Discussion

[greencycle]

I am facing an NDA charge. A legal advisor has told me that I have a good chance of being found innocent at a full-fledged court martial. Therefore, I elected for such. However, I am reconsidering, given the lengthy time to trial.

I checked the statistics on summary trials. There is a 97% conviction rate. With such a hefty conviction rate, I am wondering if the summary trial system is in fact fair.

In your experience, is the summary trial system capable of distinguishing the innocent from the guilty?

- mod edit to title to better reflect newer drift of thread -

 

[aesop081]

I have lengthy experience with the ST process.......its not a bad system.

 

[ModlrMike]

The trial system is fair. When I was in a position to lay charges, I was frequently reminded not to lay a charge that had little chance of success at trial. One of the JAG's duties is to ensure that the process runs accordingly. Bad cases are dealt with through other means.

I was also told that if you're guilty, and likely to be found so, then summary trial. If you're not guilty, but unlikely to be found so, then court martial. The main point being that ST has limited powers of punishment, a CM you can appeal to the top court. A CM also has to conform to much higher threshold of guilt and rules of evidence.

 

[vonGarvin]

In your experience, is the summary trial system capable of distinguishing the innocent from the guilty?

Yes.  It it quite capable of determining if the accused is guilty.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

However, if you are found guilty at the CM, the powers of punishment are higher than that of a Presiding Officer at a ST.

Having been 'the accused' before, a witness, and the one who recommended charges on more than 1 occassion, I think the ST portion of the military justice system does the exact job it is supposed to do.  I didn't think that when I was 'the accused' of course but...hey, I was just a kid.

Its a system, and like all systems, its not perfect but it works.  All your statistic indicates is that 97% of the charges that go to ST are determined to have been "acussed is guilty".  That doesn't account for the DIs that happen that the unit, ULA, JAG, etc decide to not proceed with, or handle thru other ways (extras, defaulters/PUPS/BIRDS, etc) or thru Admin measures (Remedial Measures, etc).

IIRC, a minor charge with a fine of less than X amount of dollars comes off your Coduct Sheet after X amount of years (or mine all did).  However, something like C & P stays on your Pers File forever.  Sometimes a ST is better in the long run than a RW or C & P.  Depends on the situation.

 

[aesop081]

Having a fine over $500 left on your conduct sheet isn't bad either.......makes you ineligible for the QDJM  ;D

 

[Eye In The Sky]

But why wouldn't you want one of those?  >

 

[Shamrock]

IIRC, a minor charge with a fine of less than X amount of dollars comes off your Coduct Sheet after X amount of years (or mine all did).  However, something like C & P stays on your Pers File forever.  Sometimes a ST is better in the long run than a RW or C & P.  Depends on the situation.

A finding of guilty does not preclude administrative action.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

True that, but I wasn't saying you can't be subject to both Admin and Disciplinary from the same incident, just pointing out that over the course of your career, a ST finding of guilty has the potential to 'go away', whereas a RM stays on your pers file forever.  10 years later, if you have the same conduct/performance pop up, and they look at your file and go "hey, Bloggins had an issue back in year XX".

 

[Teflon]

I am facing an NDA charge. A legal advisor has told me that I have a good chance of being found innocent at a full-fledged court martial. Therefore, I elected for such. However, I am reconsidering, given the lengthy time to trial.

I checked the statistics on summary trials. There is a 97% conviction rate. With such a hefty conviction rate, I am wondering if the summary trial system is in fact fair.

In your experience, is the summary trial system capable of distinguishing the innocent from the guilty?

My only question is: Are you guilty? ie: did you do it?

 

[CountDC]

my thought too Teflon.

 

[armyvern]

My only question is: Are you guilty? ie: did you do it?

I'd strongly recommend that he/she not answer that question here ... 


Now, from a CSM standpoint, I'd never draft the RDP up, nor recommend charges be laid, if I didn't think the outcome would be "guilty"; and, I know that other CSMs think the exact same way --- it's a lot of admin and paperwork that is better spent should our UD investigation deem them not proceedable. In essence, the high volume of "guilty" outcomes in the ST process. If our investigation showed the possibility of "not guilty" party, it wouldn't be RDP'd in the first place in 100% of those cases.

 

[Teflon]

I'd strongly recommend that he/she not answer that question here ... 

AWWW, you're no fun Vern!!  *taking off my "swift Justice" boots and putting away my hanging rope*

 

[armyvern]

I am facing an NDA charge. A legal advisor has told me that I have a good chance of being found innocent at a full-fledged court martial. Therefore, I elected for such. However, I am reconsidering, given the lengthy time to trial.

I checked the statistics on summary trials. There is a 97% conviction rate. With such a hefty conviction rate, I am wondering if the summary trial system is in fact fair.

In your experience, is the summary trial system capable of distinguishing the innocent from the guilty?

Do you have an Assisting Officer?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I am facing an NDA charge. A legal advisor has told me that I have a good chance of being found innocent at a full-fledged court martial. Therefore, I elected for such. However, I am reconsidering, given the lengthy time to trial.

Just wanted to add the timeline for changing election from CM to ST, not sure where you are in the process yet, but this is something to keep in mind.

An accused who has elected to be tried by court martial has the right to withdraw that election and
have the matter tried by summary trial at any time prior to the DMP preferring the charge to be tried by
court martial (QR&O 108.17(5)(a)).

After the DMP has preferred the charge to be tried by court martial, the accused may, with the consent
of the DMP, withdraw that election and have the matter tried by summary trial at any time prior to the
commencement of the court martial (QR&O 108.17(5)(b)).

 

[Teeps74]

I'd strongly recommend that he/she not answer that question here ... 


Now, from a CSM standpoint, I'd never draft the RDP up, nor recommend charges be laid, if I didn't think the outcome would be "guilty"; and, I know that other CSMs think the exact same way --- it's a lot of admin and paperwork that is better spent should our UD investigation deem them not proceedable. In essence, the high volume of "guilty" outcomes in the ST process. If our investigation showed the possibility of "not guilty" party, it wouldn't be RDP'd in the first place in 100% of those cases.

To echo what ArmyVern has said, I have conducted several disciplinary investigations and drafted several RDPs. I do not write the RDP unless I am certain the outcome is guilty. Yes, yes, cart before the horse and all that, but remember, the summary trial process is not going to deal with major things (murder etc)... The ST process is to keep all those little things in check, like being late for work (AWOL), not keeping control of your weapon (insecure weapon or unauthorized discharge), minor cases of insubordination.

Now, I can not think of an advantage to getting rid of the summary trial process. My own opinion is that it is a process whereby the chain of command is demonstrating that it wants to retain the member. In theory, administrative processes can be run in parallel, but only in the more extreme cases from what I have seen... Get rid of the summary trial process, and the administrative process will be followed more stringently, which potentially could lead to a lot of our members being on C&P and potentially released for things like being late for work (people get fired on civi street all the time for being late for work...).

Are there flaws in the summary trial process? Well, frankly there are flaws in every process created. I can not fathom a better system for keeping minor disciplinary issues in check... The other options are far too draconian, even from a military stand point. I do not believe that a soldier who is late for work twice in a year should be placed in the administrative stream or court marshaled... But perhaps a ST and a lost weekend would drive home the point nicely.

 

[armyvern]

Just wanted to add the timeline for changing election from CM to ST, not sure where you are in the process yet, but this is something to keep in mind.

An accused who has elected to be tried by court martial has the right to withdraw that election and
have the matter tried by summary trial at any time prior to the DMP preferring the charge to be tried by
court martial (QR&O 108.17(5)(a)).

After the DMP has preferred the charge to be tried by court martial, the accused may, with the consent
of the DMP, withdraw that election and have the matter tried by summary trial at any time prior to the
commencement of the court martial (QR&O 108.17(5)(b)).

The accused really needs to get together with their AO. Really.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The accused really needs to get together with their AO. Really.

 
Agree 100% and I hope the AO is experienced and switched-on.  Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let's just leave this alone for now, folks. It's an ongoing investigation\ case. If the OP has any other questions, he'll ask.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[greencycle]

I want to thank you guys for all the helpful advice. 

I will be making my decision with a lot more understanding.