## Facts

- Sgt. James T. Murphy, a U.S. Army soldier stationed in Germany, was charged with killing three people: his former wife Petra, his former stepson Tim, and his son James Jr.
- The offenses occurred in Germany while Murphy was on active duty.
- Because some victims were German nationals and the offenses occurred in Germany, Germany and the United States had concurrent authority under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
- Murphy was tried by general court-martial in 1987 and convicted of three specifications of premeditated murder, larceny, bigamy, and false swearing (UCMJ arts. 118, 121, 134).
- He was sentenced to death; the convening authority approved the sentence, and the Army Court of Military Review affirmed.
- On mandatory review, Murphy argued (among other claims) that the United States lacked proper authority to try him because Germany had primary jurisdiction under SOFA and that his counsel were constitutionally ineffective during the capital sentencing phase.

## Issues

1. Whether the court-martial lacked authority to try and sentence Murphy because Germany allegedly had primary jurisdiction under the NATO SOFA, including whether alleged misrepresentations to German authorities required relief.
2. Whether Murphy was denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment during the capital sentencing phase, requiring the death sentence to be set aside.

## Decision

- The court affirmed that the court-martial had jurisdiction and rejected the NATO SOFA-based challenge to the prosecution and sentence.
- The court held Murphy received ineffective assistance of counsel in the sentencing case.
- The court left the findings of guilt intact but set aside the sentence and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- NATO SOFA allocations of primary jurisdiction are generally matters between sovereigns; they do not, without more, divest a properly convened U.S. court-martial of authority over an active-duty servicemember for offenses committed while on duty status overseas.
- Alleged defects in intergovernmental jurisdictional allocation under SOFA do not automatically create an individual remedy that voids a conviction or sentence absent a recognized legal mechanism and a showing warranting relief.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel claims in courts-martial are evaluated under Strickland v. Washington: deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
- In a capital court-martial, defense counsel must reasonably investigate, develop, and present mitigation; materially deficient sentencing representation that could affect the adjudged punishment requires setting aside the sentence.

## Conclusion

The court held that the United States could lawfully prosecute Murphy by court-martial notwithstanding Germany’s potential SOFA interests, but it vacated the death sentence because counsel’s inadequate performance in capital sentencing undermined the reliability of the punishment determination and required a new sentencing proceeding.


United States v. Murphy, 50 M.J. 4 (C.A.A.F. 1998)