Hearst Newspapers LLC v Abrams -- Writ-Appeal Petition

36 Pages·2015·0.1 MB·English

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES

HEARST NEWSPAPERS, LLC; THE )
ASSOCIATED PRESS; BLOOMBERG )
L.P.; BUZZFEED, INC.; DOW JONES )
& COMPANY, INC.; FIRST LOOK ) WRIT-APPEAL PETITION FOR REVIEW
MEDIA, INC.; GANNETT CO., INC.; ) OF U.S. ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL
MCCLATCHY CO.; THE NEW YORK ) APPEALS DECISION ON PETITION
TIMES COMPANY; REUTERS AMERICA ) FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
LLC; WP COMPANY LLC D/B/A THE )
WASHINGTON POST, )
) Crim. App. Misc. Dkt. No.
Appellants, ) ARMY 20150652
)
v. )
) USCA Misc. Dkt. No. ___________
ROBERT B. ABRAMS, General, U.S. )
Army, in his official capacity )
as Commander of United States )
Army Forces Command, Fort Bragg, )
NC, and General Court-Martial )
Convening Authority, )
)
PETER Q. BURKE, Lieutenant )
Colonel (O-5), AG, U.S. Army, in )
his official capacity as )
Commander, Special Troops )
Battalion, U.S. Army Forces )
Command, Fort Bragg, NC, and )
Special Court-Martial Convening )
Authority, )
)
MARK A. VISGER, Lieutenant )
Colonel (0-5), JA, U.S. Army, in )
his official capacity as )
Preliminary Hearing Officer for )
Article 32 Proceedings against )
Robert B. Bergdahl, Sergeant, )
U.S. Army, )
)
and )
)
UNITED STATES, )
)
Appellees. )
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities..........................................iii

Preamble........................................................1

History of the Case.............................................3

Reasons Relief Not Sought Below.................................7

Relief Sought...................................................7

Issue Presented.................................................7

Statement of Facts..............................................7

Reasons for Reversal............................................7

I. THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN DISCLAIMING JURISDICTION TO
CONSIDER THE REQUESTED WRIT..........................10

A. The Jurisdiction of Military Appellate
Courts to Issue Extraordinary Writs
Under The All Writs Act.........................11

B. The Army Court Has Jurisdiction To
Consider The Requested Writ Because
It Is Directed At A Judicial Action
In A Case Within The Court’s Potential
Jurisdiction....................................15

C. The Army Court Has Jurisdiction To
Consider The Requested Writ Because
It May Directly Affect The Ultimate
Findings And Sentence In Sgt. Bergdahl’s
Case............................................17

1. The Conduct of An Article 32
Hearing May Affect The Ultimate
Findings And Sentence And Is
Reviewable By the Army Court...............18

-i-
2. Denial of Public Access To The
Records of Sgt. Bergdahl’s Article
32 Hearing May Affect The Article 32
Hearing And Thus The Findings And
Sentence...................................21

II. Affirming The Army Court’s Decision Will Have Far-
Reaching Consequences................................26

Respondents’ Contact Information...............................28

Conclusion.....................................................28

-ii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
ABC, Inc. v. Powell,
47 M.J. 363 (C.A.A.F. 1997) .............................passim
Bergdahl v. Burke,
Army Misc. No. 20150624,
2015 WL 5968401 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2015) ..............5, 6, 18
CBS, Inc. v. Davis,
510 U.S. 1315 (1979) .........................................9
Center for Constitutional Rights v. United States,
72 M.J. 126 (C.A.A.F. 2013) .............................passim
Clinton v. Goldsmith,
526 U.S. 529 (1999) ..............................5, 12, 13, 16
Denver Post Corp. v. United States,
Army Misc. No. 20041215,
2005 WL 6519929 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 23, 2005) .......20, 25
Dettinger v. United States,
7 M.J. 216 (C.M.A. 1979) ....................................12
FTC v. Dean Foods Co.,
384 U.S. 597 (1966) .........................................12
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court,
457 U.S. 596 (1982) .........................................21
Hasan v. Gross,
71 M.J. 416 (C.A.A.F. 2012) .............................13, 15
Lawanson v. United States,
No. NMCCA 201200187,
2012 WL 3799586 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 31, 2012) .........20
Loving v. United States,
62 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 2005) ..........................9, 10, 27
LRM v. Kastenberg,
72 M.J. 364 (2013) ......................................passim
-iii-
McKinney v. Jarvis,
46 M.J. 870 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 1997) ........................20
Oliver v. Mordente,
No. MC 2014-04,
2014 WL 2516540 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. May 9, 2014) ...........20
Pa. Bureau of Corr. v. U.S. Marshals Serv.,
474 U.S. 34 (1985) ..........................................12
Porter v. Garland,
No. 2013-10,
2013 WL 1874760 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 30, 2013) .........20
Presley v. Georgia,
558 U.S. 209 (2010) .........................................22
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,
448 U.S. 555 (1980) .........................................21
United States v. Arness,
74 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2015) .............................13, 16
United States v. Davis,
64 M.J. 445 (C.A.A.F. 2007) .....................16, 18, 19, 21
United States v. Denedo,
556 U.S. 904 (2009) .........................11, 12, 13, 25, 26
United States v. Garcia,
59 M.J. 447 (C.A.A.F. 2004) .................................19
United States v. Grunden,
2 M.J. 116 (1977) .......................................23, 25
United States v. Hershey,
20 M.J. 433 (C.M.A. 1985) ...................................22
United States v. Nichols,
23 C.M.R. 343 (C.M.A. 1957) .................................16
United States v. Nix,
36 C.M.R. 76 (C.M.A. 1965) ..................................16
United States v. Ortiz,
66 M.J. 334 (2008) ..........................................23
United States v. Payne,
3 M.J. 354 (C.M.A. 1977) ....................................16
-iv-
United States v. Quintanilla,
63 M.J. 29 (2006) ...........................................19
Waller v. Georgia,
467 U.S. 39 (1984) ..................................17, 22, 23
Wash. Post Co. v. Robinson,
935 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ...............................23
Rules & Statutes
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651............................passim
Article 19, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 819..............................19
Article 32, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 832..........................passim
Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866..........................passim
Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867...........................1, 19
Article 85, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 885...........................3, 16
Article 99, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 899...........................3, 16
C.A.A.F. Rule Prac. & Proc. 4(b)(2).............................1
C.A.A.F. Rule Prac. & Proc. 5..................................14
C.A.A.F. Rule Prac. & Proc. 18(a)(4)............................1
C.A.A.F. Rule Prac. & Proc. 27..................................1
C.A.A.F. Rule Prac. & Proc. 28..................................1
C.A.A.F. Rule Prac. & Proc. 38(b)..............................28
Other Authorities
Stephen I. Vladeck, Military Courts and the All Writs
Act, 17 GREEN BAG 2D 191 (Winter 2014) ........................28

-v-
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES:

Preamble
Pursuant to Rules 4(b)(2), 18(a)(4), and 27(b) of this
Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rule(s)”), the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and Article 67(a), UCMJ,
Appellants Hearst Newspapers, LLC (the “Express-News”), The
Associated Press, Bloomberg L.P., BuzzFeed, Inc., Dow Jones &
Company, Inc., First Look Media, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc.,
McClatchy Co., The New York Times Company, Reuters America LLC,
and WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post hereby pray that
the Court reverse a decision (the “Decision”) of the U.S. Army
Court of Criminal Appeals (the “Army Court”) denying Appellants’
petition for a writ of mandamus (the “Petition”).1
In the Petition, Appellants sought to redress Appellees’
unconstitutional infringement of the public’s First Amendment
right of contemporaneous public access to judicial records filed
in United States v. Bergdahl, and specifically requested that
the Army Court issue a writ of mandamus compelling Appellees (a)

1 The Petition is submitted along with this Writ-Appeal as
Exhibit 1, and the affidavits filed by Appellants in support of
the Petition are submitted as Exhibit 2 (October 2, 2015
Affidavit of Diego Ibarguen (“Ibarguen Aff.”)) and Exhibit 3
(October 2, 2015 Affidavit of Sig Christenson (“Christenson
Aff.”)). The Army Court’s Decision is submitted as Exhibit 4.
These four exhibits comprise the record required by Rules 27 and
28.
1
to immediately release unclassified documents received into
evidence during Sgt. Robert B. Bergdahl’s Article 32, UCMJ
preliminary hearing (the “Article 32 Hearing”), (b) to
immediately release transcripts of the Article 32 Hearing, and
(c) to comply with constitutional requirements of public access
to future judicial records that are created, filed, or otherwise
received in United States v. Bergdahl. The Army Court dismissed
the Petition for lack of jurisdiction without considering the
merits. Decision at 2.
The Army Court was wrong to do so: the requested writ was
squarely within the statutory jurisdiction of the Army Court
because public access to the requested records can affect the
fairness and outcome of the Article 32 Hearing, which bears
directly on any ultimate findings and sentence. But even more
troubling than the Army Court’s legal error is the confusion it
introduces in an already tangled area of law. Read together
with this Court’s decisions in ABC, Inc. v. Powell and Center
for Constitutional Rights v. United States, the Decision muddies
the waters as to whether and when the military courts have
jurisdiction to hear a petition filed by representatives of the
public to enforce their First Amendment rights of public access.
This lack of clarity is untenable: because federal courts will
defer to the military courts’ possible jurisdiction, the public
must attempt to vindicate their time-sensitive constitutional
2
rights in the military system, only to be told by the military
courts that relief must be sought elsewhere.
I
History of the Case

This Writ-Appeal arises out of an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing
with respect to charges preferred against Sgt. Bergdahl under
Articles 85 and 99(3), UCMJ, based on a 15-6 investigation
report (the “15-6 Report”) concerning the circumstances of
Sgt. Bergdahl’s capture by Taliban affiliates. Appellee Lt.
Col. Peter Q. Burke is the special court-martial convening
authority and Appellee Gen. Robert Abrams is the general court-
martial convening authority. The charges against Sgt. Bergdahl,
as well as the circumstances of his capture and release, have
been the subject of intense and politicized public scrutiny.
See Ibarguen Aff. ¶¶ 3-5 & Exs. A-C.
Well in advance of the Article 32 Hearing, on July 31,
2015, Appellants requested that Appellee Burke implement
procedures to ensure constitutionally-mandated public access to
the Article 32 Hearing, including contemporaneous access to
evidence, transcripts, and other judicial records. Ibarguen
Aff. ¶ 8 & Ex. F. Appellee Burke’s response did not address the
issue of access to judicial records. See Ibarguen Aff. ¶ 9 &
Ex. G. Consequently, on September 12, 2015, Appellant the
Express-News requested that Appellee Abrams answer whether and
3
how access to judicial records would be provided in this case.
Ibarguen Aff. ¶ 10 & Ex. H. The response received by the
Express-News did not answer these questions. See Ibarguen Aff.
¶ 11 & Ex. I.
The Article 32 Hearing was conducted on September 17 and
18, 2015, at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas. The
Article 32 investigating officer was Appellee Lt. Col. Mark A.
Visger. The Article 32 Hearing was conducted in public, with
representatives of the news media and public present in the
hearing room and in an overflow room. Christenson Aff. ¶ 4.
During the Article 32 Hearing, Appellee Visger accepted
several unclassified documents into evidence. Among them were
the 15-6 Report, authored by Maj. Gen. Kenneth R. Dahl, and a
lengthy transcript of Maj. Gen. Dahl’s August 2014 interview of
Sgt. Bergdahl (the “Interview Transcript”), both of which were
repeatedly referred to in testimony in open court. Christenson
Aff. ¶ 4. Maj. Gen. Dahl testified that he had no objection to
either of these documents being made public. Unofficial Tr. at
310.
During and after the Article 32 Hearing, the Express-News
made formal written requests for the release of these and other
documents entered into evidence, which were denied by
representatives of U.S. Army Forces Command. Christenson Aff.
¶¶ 5-7 & Exs. A-B; Ibarguen Aff. ¶¶ 12-13 & Exs. J-K. The
4