Bonus 64: The Case for Unanimous Court-Martial Convictions

Three pending cert. petitions are asking the justices to decide whether servicemembers can be convicted and sentenced to as much as life in prison by a 6-2 vote. Here's why they should.

Welcome back to the weekly bonus content for “One First.” Although Monday’s regular newsletter will remain free for as long as I’m able to do this, much of the bonus content is behind a paywall to help incentivize those who are willing and able to support the work that goes into putting this newsletter together every week. I’m grateful to those of you who are already paid subscribers, and hope that those of you who aren’t will consider a paid subscription if your circumstances permit:

For this week’s bonus content, I wanted to step away from the headlines and write about an issue to which I’ve previously alluded, in which I’m personally invested, and which is the subject of three pending cert. petitions: Whether court-martial convictions must be unanimous after and in light of the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Ramos v. Louisiana. The justices are set to consider two of the three petitions at their February 16 Conference. And as I explain below the fold, whatever you think the “right” answer is, the arguments on which the lower courts (including CAAF—the “Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces”) have thus far relied in upholding non-unanimous convictions fail to persuade. Thus, whether it ultimately affirms or reverses, the Supreme Court should grant certiorari and settle the matter.

Enlisted panel members sit through a mock court-martial at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, in 2015 (Air Force photo/Senior Airman Naomi Griego)

For those who are not paid subscribers, the next free installment of the newsletter will drop on Monday morning. For those who are, please read on.