## Facts

- Sergeant Jesse A. Quintanilla shot his commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Thomas A. Heffner, and his executive officer, Lieutenant Colonel Daniel W. Kidd. Kidd died, and Heffner was seriously injured.
- Quintanilla was tried by a general court-martial with officer and enlisted members and was convicted (contrary to his pleas) of offenses including premeditated murder and related charges.
- The court-martial sentenced Quintanilla to death, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1; the convening authority approved the sentence.
- At the court-martial and in post-trial events, the prosecutors committed multiple acts characterized on appeal as prosecutorial misconduct:
  - After the Article 32 hearing, assistant trial counsel Major G.P. Glazier had an ex parte conversation with the investigating officer; there was no showing that the conversation changed the investigating officer’s findings or recommendations.
  - During a pretrial hearing on a defense motion to dismiss, trial counsel Captain C.E. Feldman testified as a witness and then argued the motion, commenting on his own testimony.
  - In sentencing argument, Glazier referred to Quintanilla with inflammatory epithets, including “gangbanging, murdering animal” and “bad hombre.” Defense counsel objected, and the military judge instructed the members to disregard the improper language.
  - After trial, Glazier and Feldman removed items that had been admitted as evidence, gave some items to the victims or their families, and retained some items themselves.
- The appeal also raised trial-management errors affecting the structure and fairness of the proceeding, including the military judge’s handling of member selection (a government challenge for cause against Master Sergeant Buckham) and witness sequestration rulings involving government witnesses.

## Issues

1. Whether prosecutorial misconduct—considered alone or in combination—deprived Quintanilla of a fair and reliable capital court-martial, requiring relief as to the findings, the sentence, or both.
2. Whether the military judge erred in granting the government’s challenge for cause against a prospective panel member, and if so, whether that error required setting aside the findings and sentence.
3. Whether the identified errors warranted authorizing a rehearing, and whether any relief could be limited to sentencing only.

## Decision

- The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the findings of guilt and the sentence, including the adjudged death sentence.
- The court authorized a rehearing.

## Legal Principles

- Prosecutorial misconduct is evaluated by its effect on the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the result; multiple errors may be assessed together when deciding prejudice.
- A prosecutor should not act as both advocate and witness in the same litigation; doing so risks unfairly bolstering the prosecutor’s account and confusing the factfinder’s role.
- Sentencing argument must be grounded in the record and may not seek punishment through inflammatory name-calling or appeals to passion; curative instructions matter but do not automatically eliminate prejudice in a death-penalty setting.
- In a capital court-martial, reviewing courts apply careful scrutiny to errors that may affect confidence in either the guilt determination or the sentencing decision.
- The government must protect the integrity of exhibits and the record of trial; post-trial removal or distribution of admitted evidence can jeopardize appellate review and the appearance of fairness.
- Errors in panel selection (including erroneous grants of challenges for cause) can require broad relief when they affect the lawfully constituted factfinder for findings and sentence.
- A failure to sequester witnesses, when required, is examined for prejudice to the accused, including whether it affected testimony in a material way.

## Conclusion

In *United States v. Quintanilla*, 60 M.J. 852 (2005), the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a capital court-martial and set aside both the findings and the death sentence, concluding that trial errors—highlighted by multiple acts of prosecutorial misconduct and other fairness-related rulings—required a new proceeding; the court therefore authorized a rehearing.


United States v. Quintanilla, 60 M.J. 852 (2005)