## Facts

- A U.S. Navy service member faced a special court-martial on theft charges and retained civilian defense counsel.
- During a pretrial defense interview at a Navy legal-services office, the trial counsel and detailed military defense counsel entered uninvited and disparaged the civilian attorney’s competence in front of the accused.
- Trial counsel spoke with defense witnesses and made statements implying the accused was attempting to avoid accountability, undermining the defense in the witnesses’ presence.
- Trial counsel gave at least one defense witness legal “advice” about potential punishment related to testifying, discouraging cooperation.
- Trial counsel threatened another potential defense witness with court-martial if the witness appeared at trial, attempting to deter testimony.
- The defense moved to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct and government interference with counsel and witnesses.
- The military judge found serious misconduct occurred but denied dismissal, concluding the accused had not shown prejudice to substantial rights.
- The accused continued with the same civilian counsel and later pleaded guilty; he was convicted and sentenced.
- The intermediate military appellate court affirmed, and the case proceeded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial counsel’s misconduct (disparaging chosen counsel and intimidating defense witnesses) required dismissal of the charges.
2. Whether government interference with the attorney-client relationship or defense witnesses violated the right to effective assistance of counsel or otherwise invalidated the guilty pleas.
3. Whether, on this record, the accused established prejudice to a substantial right sufficient to warrant extraordinary relief.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- It held that the prosecutor’s conduct was improper and worthy of condemnation, but dismissal was unwarranted absent a showing that the misconduct prejudiced a substantial right.
- The court concluded the record did not show the misconduct rendered counsel ineffective, deprived the defense of material witness testimony, or made the guilty pleas involuntary.

## Legal Principles

- Prosecutorial misconduct warrants relief only when it actually impacts a substantial right of the accused (i.e., results in prejudice).
- Government interference with the defense (including disparagement of chosen counsel or witness intimidation) requires a showing of concrete impairment—such as loss of material testimony, diminished ability to prepare or present the defense, or an involuntary/unknowing plea.
- Dismissal is an extraordinary remedy generally reserved for situations where prejudice is shown and lesser measures cannot cure the harm.

## Conclusion

The court condemned severe pretrial misconduct that interfered with the defense, but affirmed because the accused did not prove that the misconduct caused prejudice to a substantial right, undermined counsel’s effectiveness, prevented material witness testimony, or rendered the guilty pleas involuntary.


United States v. Meek, 44 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 1996)