## Facts

- The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides several ways to handle servicemember offenses, including general courts-martial, special courts-martial, summary courts-martial, and nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.
- General and special courts-martial are formal proceedings typically involving lawyer judges and counsel for both sides.
- A summary court-martial is an informal proceeding for relatively minor offenses, conducted by a single commissioned officer who acts as judge, factfinder, prosecutor, and defense representative.
- Summary courts-martial have jurisdiction over enlisted personnel and impose limited maximum punishments, including short-term confinement, restriction, rank reduction, and pay forfeiture.
- Trial by summary court-martial requires the accused’s consent; a servicemember may refuse and instead face referral to a special or general court-martial (where counsel is provided) or dismissal.
- Enlisted Marines, largely charged with unauthorized absence, brought a class action challenging the use of uncounseled summary courts-martial when confinement could be imposed.
- The plaintiffs had signed written consents to summary court-martial without counsel after being informed of the alternative of a counseled special court-martial and the differing maximum punishments.
- Some plaintiffs received confinement sentences following uncounseled summary courts-martial.

## Issues

1. Whether a summary court-martial is a “criminal prosecution” triggering a Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel.
2. Whether the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause requires appointed counsel at a summary court-martial when confinement may be imposed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and held that appointed counsel is not constitutionally required at summary courts-martial.
- The Court held that summary courts-martial are not “criminal prosecutions” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment.
- The Court held that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause does not require appointment of counsel in summary courts-martial, even when confinement is authorized.
- The Court emphasized Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate the armed forces and the servicemember’s ability to refuse summary court-martial in favor of a counseled special or general court-martial.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to “criminal prosecutions,” and a military summary court-martial does not fall within that category.
- Due process does not mandate appointed counsel in every proceeding that can result in confinement; the military context and Congress’s design of summary courts-martial are central to the analysis.
- When a servicemember may reject an informal summary court-martial and elect a more formal, counseled court-martial, due process does not require counsel at the summary level.
- Courts give substantial weight to Congress’s judgments about military discipline and the structure of military justice.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the constitutionality of uncounseled summary courts-martial, ruling that they are not Sixth Amendment “criminal prosecutions” and that the Fifth Amendment does not require appointed counsel, particularly because the accused may refuse summary disposition and choose a counseled forum.


Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976)