## Facts

- U.S. Army First Lieutenant William L. Calley, Jr. was prosecuted by general court-martial under the UCMJ for killings of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai on March 16, 1968.
- Calley was charged on September 5, 1969 with the premeditated murder of “not less than 102” civilians.
- The court-martial began November 12, 1970 at Fort Benning, Georgia.
- On March 29, 1971, a panel of Army officers convicted Calley of premeditated murder of not fewer than 22 Vietnamese civilians and assault with intent to murder one Vietnamese child.
- On March 31, 1971, Calley was sentenced to dismissal, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for life; the convening authority later reduced confinement to 20 years.
- Military appellate review affirmed the findings and sentence in the Army appellate courts; the Secretary of the Army later approved the conviction and further reduced the sentence without disturbing the judgment of conviction.
- Calley filed a federal habeas petition challenging the conviction, alleging (among other claims) prejudicial pretrial publicity, denial of compulsory process for certain subpoenas, and inadequate notice raising double jeopardy concerns.
- The district court granted habeas relief on due process grounds, and the Army appealed; Calley cross-appealed on rejected claims.

## Issues

1. What is the permissible scope of federal habeas review of a court-martial conviction when military courts have addressed the asserted constitutional claims?
2. Whether pretrial and contemporaneous publicity rendered the court-martial fundamentally unfair.
3. Whether denial of subpoenas for senior officials violated Calley’s compulsory process rights.
4. Whether the charges and bill of particulars provided constitutionally sufficient notice and protection against double jeopardy.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit (en banc) reversed the district court’s grant of habeas corpus and reinstated the court-martial judgment.
- The court held that, under the governing habeas standard for court-martial convictions, civilian courts may not relitigate constitutional claims that the military courts have fully and fairly considered.
- The court found no basis for relief based on pretrial publicity given the time lapse from peak publicity and the procedures used to screen for bias.
- The court upheld the denial of requested subpoenas where the defense offered no concrete proffer showing relevance beyond generalized policy or command matters.
- The court held that the charge and bill of particulars adequately identified the time, place, and nature of the offenses and that the conviction for fewer killings did not create a notice or double jeopardy defect.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas review of court-martial convictions is limited; when military courts have given constitutional claims full and fair consideration, federal courts generally may not reexamine those claims on collateral review.
- A pretrial publicity claim requires a showing of actual prejudice or circumstances warranting a presumption of prejudice; careful voir dire and attenuation in time can defeat the claim.
- Compulsory process does not require issuance of subpoenas without a substantial, non-speculative showing that the testimony is material and relevant to the defense.
- Due process notice and double jeopardy protections may be satisfied by the charge sheet together with a bill of particulars when they sufficiently identify the conduct at issue to permit trial preparation and to bar later prosecution for the same offense.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that Calley was not entitled to federal habeas relief because the military justice system had jurisdiction and provided procedurally regular proceedings in which his constitutional claims received full and fair consideration, and the asserted defects—publicity, denied subpoenas, and alleged vagueness—did not establish a constitutional violation warranting collateral relief.


Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975)