MILITARY JUSTICE - RIGHT TO COUNSEL - SERVICEMEN TRIED BEFORE SUMMARY COURTS-MARTIAL HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL. MIDDENDORF V HENRY (1976)

• NCJ Number: 39441
• Journal: Texas Law Review Volume: 54 Issue: 7 Dated: (NOVEMBER 1976) Pages: 1471-1487
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1976
• Length: 17 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Texas
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

REVIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING IN MIDDENDORF V HENRY (1976) WHICH HELD THAT NEITHER THE FIFTH NOR SIXTH AMENDMENTS REQUIRES THE MILITARY TO PROVIDE ACCUSED SERVICEMEN WITH COUNSEL AT SUMMARY COURTS-MARTIAL.

Abstract

THE MAJORITY HOLDING IN HENRY, THAT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEE OF COUNSEL DOES NOT ATTACH TO A 'NON-CRIMINAL' JUDICIAL PROCEEDING SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ACCUSED FACES POSSIBLE INCARCERATION ARE ANALYZED. OTHER WEAKNESSES IN LEGAL REASONING SUCH AS THE ABSENCE OF ASSUMED DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS AND THE MISTAKEN PRESUMPTION THAT SUMMARY COURTS-MARTIAL CONVICTIONS CARRY NO CONSEQUENCES BEYOND IMMEDIATE PUNISHMENT ARE ALSO IDENTIFIED. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE HENRY DECISION CLOUDS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RIGHTS OF SERVICEMEN AND WEAKENS THE IMPACT OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR THAT GROUP OF AMERICAN CITIZENS....EB