Middendorf v. Henry

Background

A group of enlisted Marines sued the Navy after summary courts-martial convicted some of them for unauthorized absence and sentenced them to short terms of confinement. They had been told no appointed counsel would be provided, signed written consent to proceed without counsel, and the district court then vacated the convictions, released the class, and barred uncounseled summary trials worldwide. The court of appeals reversed that remedy and remanded in light of a prior appeals-court decision, and the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether counsel must be provided in summary courts-martial.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Constitution requires appointed counsel in brief military summary trials. The majority said that even if the Sixth Amendment might apply to courts-martial generally, a summary court-martial is not a "criminal prosecution" under that Amendment. The Court relied on differences from civilian trials — limited punishments, informal nonadversary procedures, the presiding officer's protective role, and military discipline — and gave deference to Congress and military needs. It held the Fifth Amendment due process claim did not compel appointed counsel, and noted that an accused may refuse summary trial and demand a special or general court-martial where counsel is available.

Real world impact

After this decision, the military may continue using summary courts-martial without appointing counsel for enlisted personnel, affecting those charged with minor offenses. Service members still can opt for fuller courts with counsel by refusing summary trial. The ruling leaves open separate questions about counsel in special and general courts-martial and preserves active disagreement among the Justices.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Powell (joined by Blackmun) emphasized military distinctiveness as decisive; Justice Marshall (joined by Brennan) sharply dissented, arguing Argersinger requires counsel; Justice Stewart also dissented on due process grounds.