## Facts

- Staff Sergeant Guillermo A. Quintanilla was tried by general court-martial for offenses involving a child under 16.
- A panel convicted him of forcible sodomy, indecent assault, and indecent acts under Articles 125 and 134, UCMJ.
- During the trial, the military judge confronted a witness outside the courtroom regarding the witness’s availability and cooperation; the event was later described as involving profanity and a threatening tone.
- After the confrontation, the judge had an undisclosed ex parte conversation with trial counsel about addressing the incident and a complaint arising from it.
- When the matter surfaced in court, the judge made only limited disclosures and supplied factual details used in a stipulation about the incident, effectively serving as a source of evidence about disputed events.
- Trial counsel moved to disqualify the judge; the judge denied the motion and continued presiding through conviction and sentencing.
- During appellate proceedings, additional information about the confrontation and the undisclosed ex parte contact was developed, forming the basis for a renewed recusal challenge.

## Issues

1. Whether the military judge was disqualified under R.C.M. 902(a) because his impartiality might reasonably be questioned due to the off-record witness confrontation, undisclosed ex parte communication with trial counsel, and incomplete on-record disclosure.
2. Whether any disqualification claim was waived under R.C.M. 902(e) based on counsel’s actions at trial.
3. What remedy was required if the proceedings were affected by an appearance of judicial bias.

## Decision

- The court held that the military judge’s conduct created at least an appearance of bias requiring disqualification under R.C.M. 902(a).
- The court rejected waiver under R.C.M. 902(e) because meaningful waiver requires full disclosure, and key facts—especially the ex parte communication—were not disclosed at trial.
- The court set aside the findings and sentence and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A military judge must disqualify himself under R.C.M. 902(a) when an objective observer, aware of the relevant facts, could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality.
- Undisclosed ex parte communications between a judge and one party about matters connected to a pending case can create an appearance of partiality, particularly when the communications relate to the judge’s own conduct.
- A judge’s involvement in developing or supplying facts about disputed events in the case can blur the line between adjudicator and witness and can independently support disqualification for appearance of bias.
- Waiver of disqualification under R.C.M. 902(e) is ineffective absent full disclosure sufficient to permit a knowing and intelligent relinquishment of the objection.
- When the appearance of judicial neutrality is compromised, corrective relief may be required without relying on ordinary harmless-error analysis focused on specific prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the military judge’s off-record confrontation with a witness, undisclosed ex parte communication with the prosecutor, and limited disclosure created an appearance of bias that required recusal; because the parties lacked full information at trial, waiver was not valid, and the findings and sentence were set aside for further proceedings.


United States v. Quintanilla, 56 M.J. 37 (C.A.A.F. 2001)