## Facts

- Capt. Ernest L. Medina, a U.S. Army officer, faced court-martial charges arising from alleged offenses connected to the March 16, 1968 operation at My Lai (Son My) in Vietnam.
- Before completion of his court-martial, Medina petitioned the United States Court of Military Appeals for extraordinary relief against the Secretary of the Army and other officials involved in investigation and prosecution.
- Medina alleged senior officials and prosecutors were engaged in a conspiracy to ensure he would be tried and denied a fair and impartial court-martial.
- Medina challenged the Article 32 pretrial investigation as procedurally defective, asserting the investigating officer admitted numerous unsworn statements and that this reflected bias and a predetermined outcome.
- Medina also claimed prejudice from not being called as a witness in another My Lai-related court-martial, treating that omission as further proof of unfair manipulation.
- Medina sought interlocutory intervention to halt or otherwise control the proceeding rather than waiting for trial rulings and the standard appellate process.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court of Military Appeals should grant extraordinary relief to intervene in an ongoing court-martial based on allegations of conspiracy and unfairness by senior officials and prosecutors.
2. Whether alleged Article 32 irregularities, including reliance on unsworn statements, warranted pretrial extraordinary relief rather than resolution at trial and on direct appeal.
3. Whether an accused has an enforceable right, via extraordinary writ, to be called as a witness in a separate court-martial such that failure to call him shows denial of due process in his own case.

## Decision

- The Court of Military Appeals denied Medina’s petition for extraordinary relief.
- The court declined to interfere with the pending court-martial.
- The court indicated that asserted defects in the Article 32 process and generalized claims of bias or conspiracy did not justify interlocutory relief.
- The court treated the court-martial forum and ordinary post-trial appellate review as adequate mechanisms to address evidentiary and procedural complaints.

## Legal Principles

- Extraordinary writ relief in military justice is narrowly available and generally requires a clear, exceptional showing (including lack of an adequate alternative remedy and a serious legal defect that cannot be cured through the normal process).
- Alleged errors in an Article 32 investigation typically do not justify dismissal or high-court pretrial intervention when the accused can litigate admissibility, confrontation, and fairness at the court-martial and obtain review on appeal.
- Broad allegations of conspiracy or institutional bias, without concrete supporting proof of a legal or jurisdictional violation, are insufficient to warrant extraordinary intervention.
- Decisions about whether to call an individual as a witness in a separate proceeding do not ordinarily create a cognizable right enforceable by extraordinary writ in the accused’s own court-martial.

## Conclusion

The court refused to halt or supervise the pending court-martial, holding that Medina’s allegations about Article 32 defects, bias, and witness decisions in other cases did not meet the standard for extraordinary relief and could be addressed through trial proceedings and regular appellate review.


Medina v. Resor, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 403, 43 C.M.R. 243 (C.M.A. 1971)