HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobaacjy0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DCCUMENT RESUME
02556 - [A1612605]
Military Jury 5 ystem Needs Safeguards Found in Civilian Federal
Court-s. ?PCD-76-48: B-186183. June 6, 1977. 47 pp. + 9
appendices (33 pp.) .
Report to the Congress; by Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller Generel.
Issue Area: Personnel Management and Compensation (300) ; Law
Enforcement and Crime Prevention: Prosecution and
Adjudication Efforts (504).
Contact: Federal Personnel and Compensation Div.
Budget ui..ction: National Defense: Department of Defense -
Military (except procurement & contracts) (051).
Organization Concerned: Department of Defense; Department of the
Navy; Department of the Army; Department of the Air Force;
r partment of Justice.
Curgressional Relevance: House Committee on Armed Services;
Senate Committee on Armed Services; Cong;-ers.
Authority: Jury Selection and Service Act of !968, as amended
(28 U.S.C. 1861 *t seq. (Supp. IV))., Elston Act (of] 1948.
10 U.S.C F25. Unitid States v. Crawford, 15 USCMA 31, 35
CMR 3, 1.2 (1964). United States v. McCarthy (1976). Uniform
Code of military Justice, art. 25.
The convening authority has broad authority in the
military jury selection proc-ss. This jury system is in sharp
contrast to the civilian Federal court system, which guarantees
the accused a trial by a jury randomly selected from a cross
section of the community. The potential for abuse is clearly
seen in the power of the convening authority to select jurors,
in combination with the low number of jurors needed to convict.
Findings/Conclusions: Several defense counsels interviewed
believed that jurors drawn from the higher grades may be more
severe on the accused. In 244 cases reviewed, 82% of defense
c1unse7.?, peremptory challenges were used to remove higher
graded officers from the juries. Sixty-four military officers at
all echelons were interviewed about jury selection, and about
80% of those expressing an opinion believed some form of random
selection should be implemented. These respondents were
convening authirities, commanders, and lggal personnel. In
another opinion survey at Fort Riley, Kansas, 68% of the 456
respondents favored change to random selection, and the majority
of the respondents were from the ranks selected by convening
.1thorities to serve as jurors. About 7,150 of the 49,300
military people tried by military courts in fiscal years 1975
and 1976 were tried by jury. Many accused are advised by their
defense counsel as to their choice of type of trial. Many times
a defense counsel will advise trial by judge when his own
workload is heavy. Recommendations: Congress should require
random selection of military Jurors from a pool made up of
qualified jurors representing a cross section cf the military
community. Essential personnel should be excluded from juror](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaacjy0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)