## Facts

- Army Private Angela Bryant served with the 1st Armored Division while deployed to Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm.
- The Army convened a special court-martial to try Bryant for disobeying orders, with trial scheduled to occur at the division’s operating location in Saudi Arabia.
- Bryant had the right to choose whether her case would be decided by a military judge alone or by a panel of court-martial members.
- Bryant’s defense counsel believed the government’s case had weaknesses and that Bryant might fare better before a members panel than before the military judge.
- Counsel also believed the ground campaign was about to begin and that the division would function better if soldiers remained at their ordinary duty stations rather than being detailed as court-martial members.
- Counsel felt torn between Bryant’s interests as an accused and what he viewed as the military’s operational interests.
- Counsel advised Bryant to elect trial by military judge alone, and he did not disclose to Bryant that operational concerns influenced that recommendation.
- Bryant followed counsel’s advice and requested judge-alone trial.
- The judge-alone trial occurred on February 23, 1991; the next day, Desert Storm’s ground operations began, including operations involving the 1st Armored Division.
- The military judge convicted Bryant.
- During appellate review, defense counsel submitted an affidavit acknowledging his internal conflict regarding forum selection, and Bryant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on that conflict-tainted advice.

## Issues

1. Whether defense counsel’s consideration of the unit’s operational needs when advising on forum selection created an actual conflict of interest inconsistent with counsel’s duty of loyalty to Bryant.
2. Whether Bryant was denied effective assistance of counsel because she was advised to choose a judge-alone forum for reasons not solely tied to her defense, and whether Bryant showed the required effect on the result.

## Decision

- The Army Court of Military Review rejected Bryant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s forum-selection advice.
- The court determined that the record did not warrant relief on a conflict-of-interest theory.
- The court affirmed the conviction.

## Legal Principles

- A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel generally requires a showing that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency affected the result of the proceeding.
- Conflict-of-interest claims require more than showing that counsel had mixed motivations; the accused must show an actual conflict that affected counsel’s performance or otherwise meet the required showing of harm.
- Advice about electing judge-alone trial versus trial by members is a strategic decision that must be made in the accused’s interest, but relief depends on proof that the advice was legally deficient and that it made a difference in the outcome.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Bryant’s conviction, holding that counsel’s undisclosed consideration of operational concerns in recommending a judge-alone forum did not, on this record, justify setting aside the findings, and that Bryant did not establish the necessary effect on the result from the forum-selection advice.


United States v. Bryant, 35 M.J. 739 (1992)