United States v. Wiest , 59 M.J. 276 ( 2004 )

UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Christopher D. WIEST, Cadet
U.S. Air Force, Appellant
No. 03-0106
Crim. App. No. 33964
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued October 1, 2003
Decided March 16, 2004
CRAWFORD, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which GIERKE, EFFRON, and BAKER, JJ., joined. ERDMANN, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion.
Counsel
For Appellant: Mr. Frank J. Spinner, Esq. (argued); Colonel
Beverly B. Knott, Major Terry L. McElyea, Major Bryan A. Bonner,
and Captain Antony B. Kolenc (on brief).
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Michael E. Savage (argued);
Colonel LeEllen Coacher (on brief); and Lieutenant Colonel Lance
B. Sigmon.
Military Judge: J. Jeremiah Mahoney
THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION.
United States v. Wiest, No. 03-0106/AF
CRAWFORD, Chief Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court.
Contrary to his pleas, Appellant, a cadet at the Air Force
Academy, was convicted by officer members of one specification
of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter
UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2000), by damaging a computer, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(A)(5)(B) (2000).1 He was sentenced
to a dismissal and total forfeitures. The convening authority
approved the dismissal and partial forfeitures, and the Air
Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and
sentence.
Because we hold the military judge abused his discretion in
refusing to grant a defense-requested continuance to obtain a
civilian lawyer (Issue I), we will not address the other granted
issues.2
1
We heard oral argument in this case at Offutt Air Force Base,
Bellevue, Nebraska, on October 1, 2003, as part of "Project
Outreach." See United States v. Allen, 34 M.J. 228, 229 n.1
(C.M.A. 1992).
2
II. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT
TO SUSTAIN APPELLANT’S CONVICTION TO THE LESSER-
INCLUDED OFFENSE OF 18 U.S.C. § 1030(A)(5)(B) FOR
INTENTIONALLY ACCESSING A PROTECTED COMPUTER WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION AND RECKLESSLY CAUSING DAMAGE WHERE
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT’S ACCESS TO THE
COMPUTER IN QUESTION ACTUALLY CAUSED THE DAMAGE
ALLEGED BY THE PROSECUTION AND WHERE APPELLANT
HONESTLY BELIEVED HIS ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM WAS
AUTHORIZED.
III. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN INSTRUCTING
THE MEMBERS ON THE LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF
2
United States v. Wiest, No. 03-0106/AF
FACTS
The Government contends that, contrary to the United
States Air Force Academy (USAFA) rules, Appellant attempted to
use his computer to access internet chat rooms. To prevent such
communications, USAFA had previously developed a firewall as
part of the USAFA network.
On February 2, 1999, defense counsel requested a new
investigation pursuant to Article 32, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 832(2000), arguing that the Government mistakenly told defense
counsel that logs describing individuals at USAFA who had
entered and exited the firewall did not exist. In discussing
the motion, the judge made several comments concerning the
competency of the defense counsel for relying on the
Government’s assertion that these logs did not exist, and for
not independently investigating the existence of the logs. When
discussing the reason for a new Article 32 investigation, the
judge criticized the attorneys as follows:
Certainly as an attorney, one would expect to question
why [the firewall logs] didn’t exist. Whether it was
a routine matter or there was something about the
SPECIFICATION 1 OF THE CHARGE WHERE HE FAILED TO
INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS THAT THE UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO
THE COMPUTER SYSTEM MUST HAVE BEEN INTENTIONAL.
IV. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN PROVIDING THE
COURT MEMBERS A MISTAKE OF FACT INSTRUCTION WHICH
REQUIRED THEM TO FIND THAT APPELLANT’S MISTAKE OF FACT
WAS REASONABLE INSTEAD OF MERELY HONEST.
3
United States v. Wiest, No. 03-0106/AF
particular logs from this occasion that somehow were
lost or destroyed inadvertently . . . . We are just
talking about testing the available evidence, which is
the function of an advocate.
In response to defense counsel’s explanation as to why the
motion was made months after the original Article 32
investigation, the judge stated, “but the thought never occurred
to you at that time to ask why [the logs] didn’t exist?” “[I]f
you have an indication that the type of evidence that you are
looking for should be in existence, then I think as an attorney
you should be questioning why it is no longer in existence.”
The judge said defense counsel should not have accepted the
government representative’s statement that the logs did not
exist, and should have asked their own consultant rather than
relying on the Government representative. The judge said
defense counsel should have assumed the records were always
present and “had been misinformed.” Counsel responded that they
assumed the government was telling the truth. The judge then
said, “a competent advocate assume[s] nothing.” In response to
the judge’s continued questioning, the defense counsel stated:
“Again, if we were remiss and if I’m not a competent advocate
for not confirming that, I’ll take that hit. But, it doesn’t
take anything away from the fact that [the Government] actually
knew the records existed . . . .” Later, the defense admitted
they were “novices with computers” and dependent upon experts
4
United States v. Wiest, No. 03-0106/AF
who thought the logs did not exist. In denying the motion for a
new Article 32 investigation, the judge noted that the
“availability of the firewall logs, regardless of their
completeness, was unappreciated by both the prosecution and the
defense.” He continued:
The attorneys in this case were not by training or
experience well-equipped to deal with the complex
computer[-]related materials inherent in the alleged
offenses . . . . [I]t is utterly confounding to the
court the defense expert limited himself to stating
requests to attorneys who were not equally qualified
in the subject matter.
After the judge denied the motion for a new Article 32
investigation, Appellant told the judge he believed his counsel
were ineffective at the original Article 32 investigation, and
therefore requested new defense counsel. Appellant was then
told he had misunderstood the judge’s words; in not ordering a
new Article 32 investigation, the judge did not say that counsel
was ineffective. Appellant disagreed, and personally addressed
the court as follows: “Your Honor, in light of your statements
that my counsel were ineffective at my Article 32 hearing, as
well as throughout the proceedings leading up to this court-
martial, . . . I would like to fire both.” The judge replied
again that Appellant had misunderstood his prior remarks, but
that because Appellant insisted on new counsel, replacement
counsel “must be available and prepared for trial on 8 March
5
United States v. Wiest, No. 03-0106/AF
1999.” The judge did not at this time release original defense
counsel.
Appellant then requested representation by Major Theurer, a
defense counsel with a reputation as an expert in computer
matters, as an individual military defense counsel under Rule
for Courts-Martial 506(b)[hereinafter R.C.M.]. Although Major
Theurer’s superior approved the request, he was not available
for trial on March 8, prompting the judge to state that “if
Major Theurer is not available on the 8th of March, then he is
not available period. The trial will proceed without him.” On
February 10, Mr. Spinner, a civilian defense counsel, entered
his appearance on behalf of Appellant, but requested a delay
until April 19, because of his schedule. On the same day, the
military judge faxed a response to Mr. Spinner, advising him
that the trial date was March 8 and, “If you wish to represent
the accused you need to be present and prepared on that date.”
He further advised Mr. Spinner, “If you cannot be available and
prepared on that [sic] 8 Mar 99, you are not reasonably
available and should not undertake this representation.”
Finally, he advised Mr. Spinner, “You should not count on any
further continuance being granted, and make your plans
accordingly for preparation or termination of your
representation.”
6
United States v. Wiest, No. 03-0106/AF
On February 12, the Government asked that the continuance
be denied because Appellant “is free to retain counsel . . . .
Given the amount of time that Cadet Wiest has had, and still
has, to obtain counsel that are available on 8 Mar 99, we
believe no continuances are necessary at this time.” On the
same date, the judge denied the defense request for a
continuance.3
Appellant asked for new military defense counsel on March
8. Two new military defense counsel entered appearances for
Appellant and indicated they were ready to proceed. Mr.
Spinner, who had also been retained as civilian counsel, was not
ready to begin because of other commitments. At this session,
Appellant’s request to release prior military counsel was
granted, as was his request to be represented by new counsel,
without Mr. Spinner as civilian counsel. The trial proceeded as
scheduled.
DISCUSSION
The right to counsel is fundamental to our system of
justice. United States v. Palenius, 2 M.J. 86 (C.M.A. 1977).
It should therefore be an unusual case, balancing all the
factors involved, when the judge denies an initial and timely
3
We need not decide whether the trial judge was disqualified
under R.C.M. 902(b)(1), because he had “knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning” the availability of Mr. Spinner by
obtaining facts ex parte and not subject to judicial notice.
7
United States v. Wiest, No. 03-0106/AF
request for a continuance in order to obtain civilian counsel,
particularly after the judge has criticized appointed military
counsel. Indeed, we have noted that the right to civilian
counsel is a “most valuable right,” and that therefore a
continuance should be granted at least after initial requests
for such counsel have been made, and certainly in a case where
Appellant is unsure of his appointed military representation.
United States v. Kinard, 21 C.M.A. 300, 303, 45 C.M.R. 74, 77
(C.M.A. 1972)(citing United States v. Donohew, 18 C.M.A. 149, 39
C.M.R. 149 (C.M.A. 1969)); cf. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 3-4
(1983)(citing Slappy v. Morris, 649 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1981)).
Accordingly, we hold that the military judge erred by exercising
an inelastic attitude in rescheduling Appellant’s trial, where
such request was predicated on the judge’s negative comments
about Appellant’s original military counsel and Appellant’s
subsequent selection of a new civilian counsel.
Our standard of review in the case at bar is abuse of
discretion. United States v. Weisbeck, 50 M.J. 461, 464-66
(C.A.A.F. 1999). In determining whether the judge abused his
discretion, we consider the factors articulated in United States
v. Miller: “surprise, nature of any evidence involved,
timeliness of the request, substitute testimony or evidence,
availability of witness or evidence requested, length of
continuance, prejudice to opponent, moving party received prior
8
United States v. Wiest, No. 03-0106/AF
continuances, good faith of moving party, use of reasonable
diligence by moving party, possible impact on verdict, and prior
notice.” 47 M.J. 352, 358 (C.A.A.F. 1997)(citation omitted).
See also United States v. Cokeley, 22 M.J. 225, 229-30 (C.M.A.
1986)(availability of witnesses); Kinard, 21 C.M.A. at 305, 45
C.M.R. at 79.
As to surprise on February 10, Mr. Spinner requested a
continuance well before the March 8 trial date. The request for
a continuance was based on unexpected events. Here, Appellant
was clearly surprised by the harsh criticism of his counsel by
the military judge, and this factor weighed in favor of a
continuance. As to timeliness, Mr. Spinner requested the
continuance as soon as he was retained, six days after the court
was recessed and well before the trial date. He had made no
prior requests for continuance, nor was there any delay or bad
faith by Appellant as he contacted Mr. Spinner almost
immediately and Mr. Spinner promptly submitted his request for a
continuance.
Because of the comments made by the judge concerning
Appellant’s representation at the Article 32 hearing, Appellant
requested the appointment of new military counsel and sought, in
addition, to retain civilian counsel. Based on the record, this
request was not a surprise. Appellant’s request for new counsel
was submitted shortly after the February 2 session pursuant to
9
United States v. Wiest, No. 03-0106/AF
Article 39(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 851(a) (2000). The timing of
this request therefore allowed sufficient time to establish a
date when civilian counsel would be available to work within the
schedule of the witnesses, none of whom were outside the United
States. Moreover, the Government did not establish a reason for
opposing Appellant’s request for a continuance, other than
noting that the witnesses were available on March 8, 1999. Nor
did they establish an attempt by Appellant to “vex” the
Government, or show that witnesses would not be available at a
later date. “Where a military judge denies a continuance
request made for the purpose of obtaining civilian counsel,
prejudice to the accused is likely.” Miller, 47 M.J. at 359.
Given these circumstances, the military judge should have
granted the continuance, and therefore abused his discretion in
failing to do so.
DECISION
The decision of the United States Air Force Court of
Criminal Appeals is reversed, the findings and the sentence are
set aside, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge
Advocate General for a further disposition not inconsistent with
this opinion.
10
United States v. Wiest, No. 03-0106/AF
ERDMANN, Judge (dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. I find no clear abuse of discretion
in the military judge’s refusal to grant a continuance and would
affirm the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) on Issue
I.1
The majority decision concludes that it would be an unusual
case where a judge denies “an initial and timely request for a
continuance in order to obtain civilian counsel, particularly
after the judge has criticized appointed military counsel.” The
majority opinion goes on to hold that the military judge erred by
exercising an “inelastic attitude” in rescheduling Wiest’s trial.
This was not an initial request for continuance as the
military judge had already granted a 34-day continuance to allow
Wiest the opportunity to find available civilian counsel after he
“fired” his original military counsel. Wiest had been detailed
two new military attorneys whom he accepted without reservation
and who effectively represented him throughout the trial. The
record simply does not support either the conclusion that the
military judge was “inflexible” in regard to the second requested
continuance or that Wiest was prejudiced as a result of the
denial.
1
Due to its disposition of Issue I, the majority opinion does
not address the remaining issues. I would affirm the AFCCA on
all issues.
United States v. Wiest, No. 030106/AF
Factual Background
Charges were preferred against Wiest on July 27, 1998, and a
hearing pursuant to Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice
[UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. § 832 (2000), was scheduled for August 4, 1998.
As a result of a motion by Wiest to be represented by the circuit
defense counsel, the Article 32 hearing was delayed until
September 16. Following the Article 32 hearing, charges were
referred on November 30, and the parties agreed upon a February
2, 1999 trial date.
On February 2, all parties and witnesses were present and
prepared for trial at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Before Wiest
entered his pleas, however, his defense attorneys made a motion
for a new Article 32 investigation. The basis for the motion was
that during the first Article 32 hearing, the Government had
informed the Article 32 investigating officer and defense counsel
that certain firewall logs did not exist. It was later
discovered by the defense that these logs did in fact exist. The
defense argued that these logs were critical to their case and
that a new Article 32 investigation should be held. Granting the
motion on the day of trial would have had the effect of vacating
the February 2 trial date.
The military judge conducted a hearing on the motion and
pressed the defense as to why they had not earlier challenged the
Government’s assertion that the logs had been destroyed. The
defense counsel responded that he believed that he could rely
upon the representations of the Government. The military judge
2
United States v. Wiest, No. 030106/AF
ultimately denied the motion for a new Article 32 investigation,
noting that the “availability of the firewall logs, regardless of
their completeness, was unappreciated by both the prosecution and
the defense.”
After the military judge announced his decision, Wiest made
the following statement:
Your Honor, in light of your statements that my counsel were
ineffective at my Article 32 hearing, as well as throughout
the proceedings leading up to this court-martial, at this
time, I would like to fire them both.
The military judge responded that he did not think that he ever
used the term “ineffective” nor had he questioned the defense
attorneys’ effectiveness, and he thought that Wiest had
misunderstood his statements to the defense counsel. In fact,
while the record reflects that the military judge did have a
spirited exchange with the defense counsel, he did not at any
time state that the defense attorneys were ineffective nor did
his ruling reflect any such conclusion.
Nevertheless, over the next two days the military judge held
a series of hearings to determine the availability of new
military counsel for Wiest and a new trial date. The trial
counsel consulted with their civilian and military witnesses and
requested a trial date of March 8. During this period Wiest and
defense counsel were able to locate military counsel that would
be available for the March 8 trial date. During a session
pursuant to Article 39(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 839(a) (2000) on
3
United States v. Wiest, No. 030106/AF
February 4, 1999, the military judge emphasized to Wiest a
disinclination to grant a further continuance:
I don’t control whether counsel is acceptable to
you. I do, however, control when the trial
proceeds. And, the trial is going to proceed on
the 8th of March 1999, unless somebody convinces
me otherwise by very strong and compelling
evidence that it has to be delayed.
On February 8, Wiest retained Frank J. Spinner, a civilian
attorney, to represent him in addition to his two detailed
military counsel. Wiest retained Mr. Spinner even though he knew
Mr. Spinner would not be available on March 8 and was aware of
the judge’s disinclination to grant a further delay. Mr. Spinner
formally entered his appearance as civilian counsel on February
10 and at that time requested that the trial be delayed for six
weeks until April 19 to accommodate his schedule.
The military judge denied the request that same day, stating
that he had made clear to Wiest on the record on February 2 that
any replacement counsel must be available and prepared for trial
on March 8 and if Mr. Spinner could not be available and prepared
on that date then he was not reasonably available. Trial counsel
also opposed the request, albeit two days later, on the grounds
that it was unnecessary because Wiest had, and still did have,
sufficient time to obtain civilian counsel who could be available
on March 8. When the parties assembled for the court-martial on
March 8, Wiest renewed his request for a continuance on the
grounds that his civilian counsel was unable to attend the court-
4
United States v. Wiest, No. 030106/AF
martial due to his scheduling conflict.2 That request was denied
as well.
Prior to the beginning of trial on March 8, Wiest accepted
his two newly appointed military counsel without reservation and
at that time the military judge released Wiest’s original
military counsel. The new military counsel represented Wiest
throughout the court-martial. Wiest did not attempt to discharge
his second set of military counsel, did not express any
dissatisfaction with their performance and did not, at any stage,
raise any issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. Indeed,
his military counsel succeeded in winning an acquittal on all but
one lesser-included offense.
Constitutional Right to Counsel of Choice
While the Sixth Amendment guarantees the assistance of
counsel in all criminal prosecutions, it provides only a
qualified – not absolute – right to retain counsel of the
defendant’s own choosing:
[T]he purpose of providing assistance of counsel
is simply to ensure that criminal defendants
receive a fair trial, and that in evaluating Sixth
Amendment claims, the appropriate inquiry focuses
on the adversarial process, not on the accused's
relationship with his lawyer as such. Thus, while
the right to select and be represented by one's
preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth
Amendment, the essential aim of the Amendment is
to guarantee an effective advocate for each
criminal defendant rather than to ensure that a
defendant will inexorably be represented by the
lawyer whom he prefers.
2
Rather than actively seek alternative civilian counsel, Wiest
apparently elected to keep Mr. Spinner as his civilian defense
counsel in order to “preserve the issue for appellate purposes.”
5
United States v. Wiest, No. 030106/AF
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988)(citations
and internal quotation marks omitted).
In reviewing the “adversarial process” in this case, I note
that Wiest had two competent, prepared advocates representing
him. This is not a case in which the military judge’s action
resulted in the defendant being forced to trial with an
inadequately prepared attorney or no attorney at all. As the
military judge pointed out, “not everyone can be represented by
F. Lee Bailey, Johnny Cochran, or even Mr. Frank Spinner.”
Notwithstanding the absence of Mr. Spinner, the fairness of the
adversarial process was preserved. The parameters of the
constitutional right to counsel of choice were further clarified
in United States v. Hughey, 147 F.3d 423, 428 (5th Cir.
1998)(citations and internal quotation marks omitted):
While we concur that trial lawyers are not for the most
part fungible, the Sixth Amendment simply does not
provide an inexorable right to representation by a
criminal defendant’s preferred lawyer. Indeed, there
is no constitutional right to representation by a
particular attorney. The Sixth Amendment right to
counsel of choice is limited, and protects only a
paying defendant’s fair or reasonable opportunity to
obtain counsel of the defendant’s choice.
Wiest was afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to
obtain civilian counsel of his own choosing. On February 2, when
Wiest requested a change of counsel, the military judge granted
Wiest a 34-day continuance until March 8. He even confirmed that
the date was firm two days later. Thus, even from the more
conservative date of February 4, Wiest had 32 days to obtain
6
United States v. Wiest, No. 030106/AF
counsel of his choosing. Thirty-two days is reasonable enough
time to secure counsel. See United States v. Carroll, 510 F.2d
507, 510 (5th Cir. 1992)(20 days “reasonable, even generous”);
see also Unger v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 590 (1964)(five days
“not a constitutionally inadequate time” to retain counsel).
Most cases in this area address the situation where a
“replacement” attorney is sought, not an “additional” attorney as
in this case. Few federal courts have considered an appellant’s
right to representation by multiple counsel. Where that issue
has been addressed, courts have generally found no abuse of
discretion in the denial of a requested continuance when the
appellant was otherwise represented by qualified and competent
counsel. See, e.g., United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214,
231 (3d Cir. 1983); United States v. McManaman, 653 F.2d 458, 460
(10th Cir. 1981). The “burden [of scheduling trials] counsels
against continuances except for compelling reasons.” Morris v.
Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11 (1983). The court's schedule is a matter
of necessary discretion, and should generally not be subordinated
to the schedules of the lawyers that appear before it.3 Id.3
Lawyers, as officers of the court, should accept cases and
clients only to the extent that they are able to adequately
represent them. See generally ABA Standards for Criminal Justice
Prosecution Function and Defense Function 4-1.3(e)(3d ed.
1993)("Defense counsel should not carry a workload that, by
reason of its excessive size, interferes with the rendering of
quality representation, endangers the client's interest in the
speedy disposition of charges, or may lead to the breach of
professional obligations . . . ."); Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct
R. 1.7(b) (addressing a lawyer's duty to his client when his
representation may be limited by other considerations, including
his representation of another client). Part and parcel of these
7
United States v. Wiest, No. 030106/AF
A defendant's qualified right to counsel does not extend to
an inflexible insistence on a specific attorney who cannot comply
with the court's reasonable schedule. Not only was Wiest
provided with two competent defense attorneys, but the March 8
trial date gave him almost five weeks to secure an additional
civilian attorney if he so chose. This was not an unreasonably
short period of time. Wiest’s second request for a continuance
of an additional six weeks to accommodate Mr. Spinner’s schedule
was simply unreasonable in light of the previous proceedings in
this case. In addition, Wiest chose to continue with Mr. Spinner
rather than make timely efforts to secure other civilian counsel
in order to “preserve the issue for appellate purposes.” Wiest
was effectively represented in the adversarial process and there
was no deprivation of the constitutional right to counsel.
Statutory Right to Counsel of Choice
Article 38(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 838(b) (2000), establishes
the right of an accused to representation in his defense.
Subparagraph (3) provides that an accused is entitled to detailed
military counsel or to military counsel of his choice if
reasonably available. Subparagraph (2) provides that “[t]he
accused may be represented by civilian counsel if provided by
him.” The right to counsel under Article 38(b) is, in
significant respects, broader than that of the Sixth Amendment.
obligations is the duty not to adopt a schedule that hampers the
administration of justice. See United States v. Hanhardt, 156 F.
Supp. 2d 988, 999–1000 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
8
United States v. Wiest, No. 030106/AF
Article 38; United States v. Gnibus, 21 M.J. 1, 6 (C.M.A. 1985).
This additional breadth notwithstanding, the statutory right to
counsel of choice, including civilian counsel of choice, “is not
absolute and must be balanced against society’s interest in the
efficient and expeditious administration of justice.” United
States v. Thomas, 22 M.J. 57, 59 (C.M.A. 1986)(citing Morris.)
In Thomas this Court found no abuse of discretion in the
denial of an eight-day continuance where defendant had previously
been granted a twenty-day continuance and had been warned that a
second continuance would not be granted. Id. at 59. Although
civilian counsel failed to appear on the set trial date
apparently due to a medical emergency in his family, detailed
defense counsel ably represented defendant. Similarly, in United
States v. Montoya, 13 M.J. 268, 274 (C.M.A. 1982), this Court
held that “the accused's unfettered choice to select a civilian
counsel at any time during the trial . . . cannot operate to
unreasonably delay the progress of the trial.”
An accused can always discharge his attorney, but if he
desires to substitute another attorney for the one
discharged, his [Article 38(b)] right is qualified in
"that the request for substitution of counsel cannot
impede or unreasonably delay the proceedings.
Id. (quoting United States v. Jordan, 22 C.M.A. 164, 167, 46
C.M.R. 164, 167 (1973)).
Generally, a military judge may grant a continuance whenever
fairness renders it appropriate to do so. Article 40, UCMJ, 10
U.S.C. § 840 (2000); Rule for Courts-Martial 906(b)(1). After an
accused has been given a fair or reasonable opportunity to obtain
9
United States v. Wiest, No. 030106/AF
counsel of choice, the decision to grant or deny a continuance to
permit a further opportunity to do so rests within the broad
discretion of the trial court and, absent clear abuse, will not
be overturned. Thomas, 22 M.J. at 59.
In United States v. Miller, 47 M.J. 352 (C.A.A.F. 1997),
this Court applied eleven factors to be considered in evaluating
whether a military judge abused his discretion in denying a
motion for a continuance. Id. at 358 (citing F. Gilligan & F.
Lederer, Court-Martial Procedure § 18-32.00 at 704 (1991)). The
AFCCA made factual findings in regard to the applicable Miller
factors and held that the military judge’s denial of the
continuance was not an abuse of discretion.4 United States v.
Wiest, ACM 33964 (Sep. 24, 2002). This Court is bound by the
lower court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.
United States v. Benedict, 55 M.J. 451, 454 (C.A.A.F. 2001).
The record in this case does not support the conclusion that
the military judge’s denial of the second requested continuance
was “clearly untenable and . . . deprive[d] a party of a
substantial right such as to amount to a denial of justice,”
which is the abuse of discretion standard for motions for
continuance. Miller, 47 M.J. at 358 (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
No Showing of Prejudice
4
The AFCCA weighed the following Miller factors: surprise,
length of continuance, prejudice, prior continuances, possible
impact on the verdict, good faith and reasonable diligence of
moving party, and prior notice. Wiest, ACM 33964 at 7–12.
10
United States v. Wiest, No. 030106/AF
Wiest argues that he was prejudiced because trial lawyers
are not fungible, and he therefore has the right to insist upon
Mr. Spinner's services. Wiest misunderstands the scope of the
right to counsel of choice. Although trial lawyers are not for
the most part fungible, the Sixth Amendment simply does not
provide an inexorable right to representation by a criminal
defendant's preferred lawyer. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159. Moreover,
despite Mr. Spinner’s experience as a litigator, it is pure
speculation to conclude that he would have obtained a better
result for Wiest than the one Wiest received from his detailed
counsel.
Where there is no prejudice there should be no reversal. In
United States v. Kinard, this Court stated:
Where no harmful consequence resulted from denial of a
continuance, there is no ground for complaint, and where the
withdrawing or discharged counsel was adequately replaced and
the defense properly presented, it is generally held that
refusal of a postponement was not prejudicial to the accused.
21 C.M.A. 300, 306, 45 C.M.R. 74, 82 (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). Likewise, in United States v.
Wellington, 58 M.J. 420, 425 (C.A.A.F. 2003), we stated: “[W]e
need not decide if the military judge abused his discretion [by
denying a continuance request], because Appellant has not
established that he was prejudiced.” Here, no harmful
consequence resulted: Wiest was not forced to trial without
adequately prepared, competent counsel, much less without any
counsel at all. Wiest has not offered any other facts that would
11
United States v. Wiest, No. 030106/AF
support the conclusion that he was denied a fair trial. As Wiest
was not prejudiced, any error must be deemed harmless.
Conclusion
There was no deprivation of either Wiest’s Sixth Amendment
or Article 38(b) qualified right to counsel of choice. Even if
we were to assume that the military judge’s comments to the
initial military counsel were inappropriate, that issue was
adequately remedied when Wiest secured two new military
attorneys. He accepted these attorneys without reservation and
at no point has he complained of their competence or
representation. In addition, Wiest was afforded a fair and
reasonable opportunity to procure his choice of civilian counsel
and was clearly on notice that he should find counsel who was
available on the selected date. Instead, he knowingly selected
unavailable civilian counsel.
The language utilized by the military judge when he
announced the rescheduled trial date5 does not reflect an
inflexible attitude towards further continuances – rather it
reflects a clear statement that further continuances would not be
allowed except for strong and compelling reasons. I am reluctant
to find error where the military judge both allowed an
5
“[T]he trial is going to proceed on the 8th of March unless
somebody convinces me otherwise by very strong and compelling
evidence that it has to be delayed.”
12
United States v. Wiest, No. 030106/AF
objectively reasonable time for Wiest to secure additional
counsel and where he acted to ensure that Wiest would be
adequately represented by prepared and available counsel. Given
the broad latitude of the court to control its scheduling, I find
no clear abuse of the military judge's discretion and no
deprivation of Wiest’s constitutional or statutory rights in the
denial of a continuance.
Finally, it is a rare hearing indeed where a judge’s
comments cannot be construed by one party or another as being
“negative.” Under the majority opinion, I fear that civilian
counsel will be able to “run” the court dockets based upon their
scheduling concerns rather than traditional concerns for the
sound administration of justice.
I would therefore affirm the decision of the AFCCA.
13