## Facts

- Sergeant Lawrence G. Hutchins III, U.S. Marine Corps, was tried by general court-martial for offenses arising from the killing of an Iraqi civilian in Hamdaniyah, Iraq.
- A three-attorney defense team represented Hutchins for roughly ten months, including Captain Alan Bass, USMC.
- Shortly before trial, Bass planned to separate from active duty and begin terminal leave; defense counsel informed Hutchins and the military judge that Bass would not participate at trial.
- The military judge permitted Bass’s withdrawal without a detailed, on-the-record inquiry into the separation status, possible alternatives to preserve representation (e.g., continued participation in another status or as civilian counsel), or a clear, informed consent by Hutchins.
- Hutchins proceeded to trial represented by the remaining detailed and individual military defense counsel.
- The members convicted Hutchins of making a false official statement, unpremeditated murder, larceny, and conspiracy (including to commit larceny, false official statements, murder, and obstruction of justice), and he received a sentence that included confinement and a dishonorable discharge.
- On appeal, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the findings and sentence, concluding the severance of the attorney–client relationship with Bass substantially prejudiced Hutchins.
- The Judge Advocate General certified the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review whether that prejudice determination was erroneous.

## Issues

1. Whether the military judge improperly severed the attorney–client relationship between Hutchins and Captain Bass.
2. If severance was improper, whether the error materially prejudiced Hutchins’s substantial rights under Article 59(a), UCMJ.
3. Whether improper severance of one member of a defense team is presumptively prejudicial or instead requires a case-specific showing of prejudice.

## Decision

- The court held the military judge erred in handling the termination of Hutchins’s attorney–client relationship with Captain Bass.
- The court held the error was not structural and was not presumptively prejudicial.
- Applying Article 59(a), the court concluded Hutchins failed to show material prejudice to his substantial rights.
- The court reversed the intermediate appellate court’s decision granting relief and remanded for further review of remaining issues.

## Legal Principles

- Once an attorney–client relationship with a specific military defense counsel is established, it may not be terminated by the government without good cause.
- When counsel withdraws or is removed, the military judge must conduct a sufficient inquiry on the record to ensure the severance is justified and the accused’s rights are protected.
- Improper severance of one defense counsel, where the accused continues to be represented by other competent counsel, is reviewed for material prejudice under Article 59(a), UCMJ rather than treated as structural error.
- Material prejudice requires a concrete showing from the record that the defense was impaired or the trial outcome was affected; speculative harm is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court found error in the trial judge’s approval of defense counsel’s withdrawal without adequate inquiry, but held the conviction could not be set aside absent a demonstrated, material adverse effect on the defense under Article 59(a).


United States v. Hutchins, 69 M.J. 282 (C.A.A.F. 2011)