## Facts

- A general court-martial convicted Airman Rodney B. Boyce of rape on divers occasions and two assaults consummated by battery under Articles 120 and 128, UCMJ.
- The panel sentenced Boyce to reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and four years’ confinement; the convening authority approved forfeitures and confinement (not the reduction).
- The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence (with six days’ confinement credit).
- Lieutenant General Craig A. Franklin served as the general court-martial convening authority and was responsible for referral decisions affecting Boyce’s case.
- Franklin faced intense public and congressional criticism for prior decisions in sexual-assault matters, including calls for his removal.
- After a highly publicized decision in another sexual-assault case, Franklin was informed that the Secretary of the Air Force had lost confidence in him and would remove him unless he chose to retire.
- Franklin was not relieved of convening-authority responsibilities and continued to exercise referral authority.
- On January 6, 2014, Franklin referred Boyce’s charges to a general court-martial; two days later, Franklin announced his retirement.
- Boyce moved to dismiss at trial, alleging unlawful command influence (UCI) in the referral decision; Franklin denied actual influence but acknowledged the likelihood of an appearance of UCI.
- The military judge and the intermediate appellate court found neither actual nor apparent UCI.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary’s ultimatum that the convening authority retire or be removed created an appearance of unlawful command influence in the referral of Boyce’s charges such that an objective, disinterested observer would significantly doubt the fairness of the proceedings.
2. Whether the government met its burden to dispel beyond a reasonable doubt any appearance of unlawful command influence once the defense produced some evidence raising the issue.

## Decision

- CAAF reversed the findings and sentence and authorized a rehearing.
- The court found no actual unlawful command influence proved in the referral decision.
- The court held the totality of circumstances created an appearance of unlawful command influence affecting public confidence in the fairness of the court-martial.
- The reversal was without prejudice, permitting the government to retry the case through a properly selected convening authority.

## Legal Principles

- Unlawful command influence includes both actual influence and the appearance of influence; the appearance alone can warrant relief when it creates significant doubt about fairness.
- Once the defense presents some evidence of UCI, the burden shifts to the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
  - the predicate facts do not exist, or
  - the facts do not constitute UCI, or
  - the UCI will not affect the proceedings and a fully informed objective, disinterested observer would not significantly doubt fairness.
- The “objective, disinterested observer” is assumed to know all relevant facts and circumstances, including the institutional context and pressures on decisionmakers.
- When the taint is tied to the referral decision itself, an appropriate remedy may be reversal of findings and sentence with rehearing authorized.

## Conclusion

CAAF set aside Boyce’s convictions because senior-leadership actions and career pressure placed on the convening authority, combined with the timing and context of the referral, created an appearance of unlawful command influence that would cause a fully informed objective observer to doubt the fairness of the court-martial.


United States v. Boyce, 76 M.J. 242 (C.A.A.F. 2017)