Unlawful Command Influence? Analyzing the Impact of President Obama’s Sexual Assault Comments on Military Court-Martials
The military justice system often operates under a unique set of rules and pressures, balancing the chain of command with the need for impartial trials. In 2013, a significant controversy arose when President Barack Obama publicly addressed sexual assault in the military, advocating for strict accountability, including automatic dishonorable discharges for those convicted. While well-intentioned, these comments inadvertently stirred a legal firestorm around unlawful command influence (UCI) in court-martials involving sexual assault charges.
Understanding the Controversy: What Did President Obama Say?
During a speech at the United States Naval Academy’s graduation at Annapolis and other public addresses, President Obama emphasized a zero-tolerance stance on sexual assault within the military. He stated that individuals found guilty of sexual assault must be held fully accountable and discharged dishonorably. These comments quickly made headlines in major outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Stars and Stripes.
While the goal was to underscore the seriousness of sexual assault, military defense attorneys raised concerns that such directives from the Commander-in-Chief could constitute unlawful command influence. UCI occurs when an authority improperly interferes with judicial proceedings, potentially prejudicing outcomes and violating defendants’ rights to fair trials.
The Legal Fallout: Courts Respond to UCI Claims
Defense attorneys swiftly filed motions citing the President’s comments as unlawful command influence. The first major ruling came from Navy Judge Commander Marcus Fulton in Pearl Harbor, who granted a motion recognizing the comments as UCI and consequently removed punitive discharges—such as dishonorable discharges—from the potential punishments for sexual assault convictions.
This ruling sent ripples through the military justice system. Other judges across various branches followed suit, though remedies varied:
- Some judges allowed expanded voir dire (jury selection questioning) to root out bias caused by the public comments.
- Others limited the scope of punishments, removing dishonorable discharges as an option.
- Some took more moderate steps, like granting additional peremptory challenges to defense counsel.
These inconsistent remedies highlighted the challenge in balancing the need to address UCI without compromising the prosecution of sexual assault cases.
The Jury Selection Challenge: Tainted Panels and Impartiality
One of the most profound impacts has been on jury selection, known as voir dire. Attorneys Tim Bilecki and Michael Waddington, featured in the Military Law News Network, shared firsthand experiences revealing how the President’s speeches and related military training have influenced potential jurors’ perceptions.
In particular, at the 25th Infantry Division and 8th Theater Sustainment Command in Hawaii, military training during Sexual Assault Awareness Month included screening the film The Invisible War and viewing the President’s speeches. Participants were instructed that the Commander-in-Chief demands action and dishonorable discharges for convicted offenders. This created a jury pool where many potential members felt compelled to impose harsh punishments regardless of the evidence, undermining fairness.
Defense counsel reported rejecting dozens of potential jurors—ranging from senior enlisted leaders to colonels—due to their preconceived bias, leaving only a handful of eligible panel members. Furthermore, some jurors had direct roles in sexual assault prevention or investigations, raising additional impartiality concerns.
Broader Implications: The SJA’s Role and Jury Composition
The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) office is tasked with advising on jury selection to ensure fairness. However, attorneys have observed troubling patterns where jury panels in sexual assault cases lack demographic diversity or are skewed against the accused. For example, in some cases, the military has selected juries where the accused’s race or ethnicity is underrepresented or where the majority are women with personal experiences related to sexual assault.
While ensuring victims’ perspectives is important, these imbalances may create implicit biases, challenging the core principle of an impartial jury.
Contextualizing the Issue: What is Unlawful Command Influence?
Unlawful command influence is often called the “mortal enemy of military justice” because it threatens the fairness and integrity of court-martial proceedings. When high-ranking officials, especially the Commander-in-Chief, publicly dictate outcomes or punishments, it can pressure military judges, prosecutors, and panel members to act in ways that may not align with the evidence.
The military justice system has built-in safeguards to prevent UCI, but public statements of this nature test the boundaries. Judges must carefully weigh how to remedy the influence, ranging from enhanced jury questioning to limiting punishments, or in extreme cases, dismissing charges.
Looking Forward: Balancing Accountability and Fairness
The military continues to grapple with how to combat sexual assault effectively while upholding defendants’ rights to a fair trial. President Obama’s comments, though intended to strengthen accountability, have inadvertently complicated court-martial proceedings. The tension between command authority and judicial independence remains a critical area for military legal practitioners.
For defense attorneys, vigilance during jury selection and motions to address UCI are essential strategies. For commanders and policymakers, careful consideration is needed before public statements that could influence judicial processes.
Conclusion
President Obama’s public stance on sexual assault in the military brought much-needed attention to a serious issue but also sparked significant legal challenges surrounding unlawful command influence. The military justice system’s response, including varied judicial remedies and the impact on jury selection, reveals the delicate balance between enforcing discipline and ensuring justice.
As the military evolves its approach to sexual assault cases, lessons from this controversy emphasize the importance of preserving impartiality in courts-martial while maintaining a strong stance against misconduct. Both commanders and legal professionals must navigate these complex waters carefully to uphold both accountability and fairness.
For military members, legal practitioners, and advocates alike, understanding the nuances of unlawful command influence and its ramifications remains essential for ensuring justice within the armed forces.
Resources for Further Reading:
- Military Law News Network
- UCMJ Defense
- Stars and Stripes: Judge on Obama’s Sex Assault Comments and UCI
- Military Attorney Sexual Assault Defense