## Facts

- Specialist Sabrina D. Harman, a U.S. Army reservist, served as a guard at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003.
- On November 4, 2003, a detainee was placed on a box with a hood over his head; Harman attached wires to his fingers and told him he would be electrocuted if he fell, photographed him, and later admitted the wiring was her idea and not requested by military intelligence.
- On November 7, 2003, several restrained detainees with sandbags over their heads were subjected by guards to forced nudity, physical abuse, and humiliation, including being arranged into a naked human pyramid; Harman photographed the events.
- During the November 7 incident, Harman wrote “I’m a rapeist (sic)” on the thigh of a naked detainee and posed smiling with a thumbs-up next to the human pyramid.
- Before these incidents, Harman had removed overly prolonged restraints from a detainee and reported the mistreatment, and she wrote to a friend expressing concern about detainee abuse she had witnessed.
- At a general court-martial, Harman was convicted (contrary to her pleas) of conspiracy to maltreat, willful dereliction of duty for failing to protect detainees from abuse, and four specifications of maltreatment; she received a bad-conduct discharge and confinement, among other penalties.
- On automatic review, Harman challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the dereliction-of-duty conviction, arguing she lacked adequate training and believed she was documenting abuse rather than participating in it.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove Harman knew or reasonably should have known she had a duty to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment for purposes of Article 92 dereliction of duty.
2. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove Harman’s breach of that duty was willful rather than merely negligent.
3. Whether asserted training deficiencies and Harman’s “documentation” theory negated the required mental state for willful dereliction.

## Decision

- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence.
- The court held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the Article 92 conviction for willful dereliction of duty in failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment.
- The court rejected Harman’s claims that lack of training prevented proof of knowledge of duty and that taking photographs showed she was merely documenting wrongdoing rather than participating in it.

## Legal Principles

- Article 92 dereliction of duty requires proof of: (1) a duty, (2) actual or constructive knowledge of the duty, and (3) a willful or negligent breach of the duty.
- Constructive knowledge may be established when the duty and its violation would be apparent to a reasonable person in the accused’s position.
- Willful dereliction may be inferred from conduct showing intentional or reckless disregard of a known duty, including affirmative participation in the misconduct and behavior demonstrating approval or encouragement.
- Alleged training shortcomings do not excuse conduct that is plainly abusive and incompatible with a guard’s basic obligation to protect detainees from abuse and maltreatment.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Harman’s willful dereliction-of-duty conviction, concluding that her prior conduct reflected awareness that detainee mistreatment was wrong and that her actions during the November incidents—initiating abusive tactics, humiliating detainees, and posing approvingly—supported findings that she at least should have known of her protective duty and willfully failed to carry it out.


United States v. Harman, 66 M.J. 710 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2008)