United States v. Denedo

The Supreme Court just issued an opinion in United States v. Denedo that could have a substantial impact on the military justice system. Denedo was originally from Africa and, upon coming to America, enlisted in the US Navy. He was later court martialed. He pleaded guilty at his court martial, but according to him, only after his attorney assured him that he could not be deported for his court martial conviction. After his trial, the US did take steps to deport Denedo. Denedo’s appeal of his court martial had already been completed and his conviction upheld when the government began deportation proceedings against him.
Upon being served notice that the US intended to deport him, Denedo filed a petition with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals asking the court to overturn his conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that had his attorney properly advised him that a conviction could result in his deportation, he never would have agreed to plead guilty.
The Navy argued that the appellate court did not have jurisdiction to set aside Denedo’s conviction since the case had already been affirmed on appeal. Denedo’s case eventually made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the military appellate courts, to include the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, have the authority to review cases even after the original appeals process has completed.
Denedo’s case now will go back to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. This doesn’t mean that he has won and that his conviction will be overturned, only that he will be given the opportunity to argue that his conviction should be overturned. He still has an uphill battle as it is difficult to win ineffective assistance of counsel claims (which is part of the reason that it is so important to hire a good attorney from the start of the case.) This is a significant case because it will allow other service members to challenge their court martial convictions, even after the appeals process has been completed. I would anticipate that very few cases will ever be overturned on further review, but this does give service members another opportunity to appeal their convictions. The ruling will apply to both guilty plea cases and to cases where there was a trial. I believe that most appeals will come from guilty plea cases, like Denedo’s, though, where the accused pleaded guilty and did not present a rigorous appeal until he later learned of some of the consequences of his conviction and guilty plea.

Recruiter hides applicant's autism

The Marine Corps is once again in the news because of dishonest recruiting practices. A Marine fresh out of boot camp is currently being held at the Camp Pendleton brig and is facing charges of child pornography and unauthorized absence. There would be nothing noteworthy about his case except that he has autism. Not only does he have autism, but he is the subject of a court order placing him under a limited conservatorship which, among other things, bars him from entering into contracts.
So how did someone in his condition get accepted into the Marine Corps? The Marine’s defense counsel claims that he got in because his recruiter hid his condition. Unfortunately, it is a somewhat common practice for Marine recruiters to cover up potentially disqualifying information about prospective applicants. I have had many Marine recruiters come to me for legal counsel about what to do now that they have found themselves in a situation where they covered up information that they fear will soon come out, and I have represented other recruiters that the Marine Corps has taken adverse action against.
This problem persists because of the quotas that the Marine Corps places on recruiters. Recruiters are expected to sign a certain number of perspective applicants each month. If the recruiter fails, the Marine Corps can take adverse action against him which can cost him promotions or even his career. Most Marines are not used to failing at a task and they certainly don’t want to face adverse consequences for failing in their missions. Unfortunately, this is causing some to cut corners, and the easiest way to do this is to take those who want to join the Corps but are unqualified to join and to cover up the issues that make them unqualified. This results in things like helping applicants cheat on the ASVAB, telling the applicant to report that he used drugs fewer times than he actually did to make it easier to get him a waiver to join, and even covering up medical or mental conditions. This problem is only made worse by the fact that the Marine Corps is currently expanding and so needs even more applicants than normal.
There is no quick fix to this problem either. Perhaps if the Marine Corps wasn’t so hard on good Marines that simply aren’t good recruiters it would help. Perhaps if there was stricter supervision over recruiters there wouldn’t be as many incidents where recruiters help unqualified applicants gain entrance. But, at the end of the day, there will always be unqualified applicants that want in and there will always be some recruiters that will help them get in for whatever reason.
Another interesting question that this particular case poses is how did this Marine with autism graduate from boot camp? I was stationed at MCRD San Diego, where this Marine graduated. I often heard senior enlisted Marines and retired enlisted Marines say that boot camp simply is not near as hard as it was even a decade or two ago. I am sure that this case will give them even more ammunition for that argument.