## Facts

- Sergeant Danyel D. Green, U.S. Army, was convicted at a judge-alone general court-martial of multiple offenses, including cruelty and maltreatment, false official statement, assault consummated by battery, indecent assault, solicitation to commit adultery, and adultery, under Articles 93, 107, 128, and 134, UCMJ.
- The adjudged sentence included a bad-conduct discharge, 13 months’ confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1; the convening authority approved the findings and approved the bad-conduct discharge, 13 months’ confinement, and reduction to E-1.
- On appeal, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
- During sentencing, Green made an unsworn statement that invoked his religious faith as part of his request for leniency.
- After announcing the sentence, the military judge made explanatory remarks that included references to religious concepts (e.g., forgiveness and moral accountability).
- Green asserted that the judge’s comments showed the sentence was based on the judge’s personal religious beliefs rather than lawful sentencing considerations.

## Issues

1. Whether Green’s due process rights were violated because the military judge imposed sentence based on personal religious beliefs, as reflected in religious references during sentencing remarks, rather than on legitimate sentencing principles.

## Decision

- The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed the lower court’s decision and the approved findings and sentence.
- The court held that the military judge did not sentence Green based on personal religious beliefs.
- The court concluded the judge’s remarks, viewed in context, responded to Green’s own religious themes and were part of an explanation grounded in lawful sentencing considerations.
- The court indicated that, even assuming arguable impropriety in the wording, relief would require material prejudice under Article 59(a), UCMJ, which was not shown.

## Legal Principles

- A military judge has broad sentencing discretion within the limits set by the UCMJ, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and constitutional requirements.
- An accused may present an unsworn statement in sentencing; it is not subject to cross-examination, though the government may rebut it. R.C.M. 1001(c)(2).
- A military judge in a bench trial may explain the reasons for a sentence; the absence of a general requirement to state reasons does not bar such explanations.
- Due process prohibits imposing a sentence based on a judge’s personal religious doctrine; references to religion are not, by themselves, unconstitutional when the operative basis for the sentence is lawful sentencing factors.
- Sentencing error warrants relief only upon a showing of material prejudice to substantial rights. Article 59(a), UCMJ.

## Conclusion

CAAF held that the military judge’s religious references during sentencing did not establish a due process violation because the record showed the sentence was based on lawful military sentencing considerations, not personal religious doctrine, and there was no material prejudice requiring relief.


United States v. Green, 64 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 2007)