Adjudicative UCI – Influencing the accused to plead guilty
United States v. Johnson, 54 M.J. 32 (C.A.A.F. 2000). The appellant alleged that the intermediate commander strongly supported a suspension of some punishment. The original convening authority left command and a new convening authority, with a tougher stance, came in. Then, the intermediate commander decided not to go to bat for him. Following a Dubay hearing, the Dubay military judge found no evidence of UCI and the court found that (Global Military Justice Reform Blog ) military judge’s findings were not clearly erroneous.
Influencing the accused to plead guilty
If the accused enters his pleas of guilty because he is afraid to go to trial before a court that he believes has been unlawfully influenced (and so will not give him a fair trial), then courts may find that UCI has impacted the proceedings. United States v. Gleason, 43 M.J. 69 (C.A.A.F. 1995); United States v. Thomas, 22 M.J. 388 (C.M.A. 1986); United States v. Kitts, 23 M.J. 105 (C.M.A. 1986).
Note that this is different than the accused negotiating for a better pretrial agreement in exchange for waiving an accusatorial UCI issue. United States v. Weasler, 43 M.J. 15 (C.A.A.F. 1995).