## Facts

- Airman First Class Nicholas E. Daniels was charged under Article 120, UCMJ, with raping and sexually assaulting Airman First Class LRM.
- LRM was assigned a Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC), who entered an appearance asserting LRM’s right to be heard on matters involving M.R.E. 412 (rape-shield), M.R.E. 513 (psychotherapist-patient privilege), and M.R.E. 514 (victim advocate privilege).
- The SVC requested that the defense serve LRM with motions invoking those rules and that LRM be permitted, through counsel, to be heard on such matters.
- The defense agreed to provide copies of motions but opposed SVC participation in evidentiary hearings.
- The military judge ruled LRM could be heard only on factual matters, barred SVC from arguing evidentiary matters, and concluded LRM lacked standing to litigate evidentiary issues; he later denied reconsideration.
- LRM petitioned the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) for mandamus to set aside the limitations; AFCCA denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Air Force Judge Advocate General certified issues to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (C.A.A.F.) concerning AFCCA jurisdiction, the military judge’s restrictions, and whether mandamus should issue.

## Issues

1. Whether a Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction, including under the All Writs Act in aid of Article 66 authority, to consider an alleged victim’s mandamus petition challenging rulings affecting M.R.E. 412/513/514 rights.
2. Whether the military judge erred by categorically denying LRM a meaningful opportunity to be heard through counsel on M.R.E. 412/513/514 motions.
3. Whether C.A.A.F. should itself issue a writ of mandamus directing relief.

## Decision

- C.A.A.F. held AFCCA had jurisdiction to entertain LRM’s mandamus petition because extraordinary relief may be available in aid of the CCA’s potential Article 66 review of the court-martial record.
- C.A.A.F. held the military judge abused his discretion by imposing a blanket rule limiting LRM to factual input and barring counsel from legal or evidentiary argument on M.R.E. 412/513/514 matters.
- C.A.A.F. declined to issue mandamus itself, applying the demanding mandamus standard, and instead reversed AFCCA’s jurisdictional ruling and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Under the All Writs Act, a military Court of Criminal Appeals may entertain petitions for extraordinary relief when the requested writ is in aid of its existing or potential jurisdiction over court-martial findings and sentence.
- For jurisdictional purposes, a victim’s petition may be “in aid of” future appellate review where the challenged evidentiary or privilege rulings can affect the record that will later be reviewed.
- M.R.E. 412(c)(2), 513(e)(2), and 514(e)(2) provide an alleged victim or patient a “reasonable opportunity to be heard” at hearings implicating rape-shield protections and privileged communications, which may include being heard through counsel.
- A categorical prohibition on victim’s counsel presenting legal or evidentiary argument on motions directly affecting the victim’s privacy or privilege interests is inconsistent with the rules’ hearing procedures and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
- Victims are not parties to a court-martial; permitting limited participation through counsel on discrete privilege and privacy issues does not convert the proceeding into a three-party system and must remain consistent with the accused’s constitutional trial rights.
- Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear and indisputable right to relief, no other adequate means to obtain relief, and appropriateness under the circumstances.

## Conclusion

C.A.A.F. recognized appellate jurisdiction for a CCA to consider an alleged victim’s mandamus petition tied to future appellate review and held that victims have a limited right to be heard through counsel on M.R.E. 412/513/514 issues, but it remanded rather than issuing mandamus directly.


LRM v. Kastenberg, 72 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2013)