Whelchel v. McDonald

Background

A soldier on active duty in the Army in Germany was convicted by a general court-martial of raping a German girl. The death sentence imposed was later reduced to a term of years. The soldier filed a petition in federal court asking for release, arguing the military trial lost power to act because of how the question of his sanity was handled. Lower federal courts denied relief and the case reached the Court to decide that jurisdiction question.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether the accused had been given an opportunity to raise the insanity issue, because a denial of that opportunity would strip the military tribunal of jurisdiction. Before trial an investigating officer, a division neuro-psychiatrist, and the Division Staff Judge Advocate all reported no reason to regard the soldier as deranged. The defense did not press insanity at pretrial or trial, but after trial defense counsel sought reopening and a psychiatric exam, supported by five of six court members and other officers. Senior military reviewers, including the Theater commander and review boards, saw those requests. While a new rule later authorized the Judge Advocate General to grant a new trial, the JAG reviewed the record here and concluded the accused could distinguish right from wrong. The Court held that because the accused had an opportunity to present the insanity claim and the military authorities considered it, any disagreement over how the evidence was weighed does not destroy the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Real world impact

The decision means servicemembers must be given a chance to raise mental-condition defenses, but civilian courts will generally not reweigh military judgments about sanity. Military review authorities have discretionary power to decide whether further action is needed, and an officer-only court-martial does not by itself void the tribunal's power.