Unlawful command influence

Unlawful command influence or UCI is a legal concept within American military law. UCI occurs when a person bearing "the mantle of command authority" pressures—or even appears to pressure—military judicial proceedings. Military commanders typically exert significant control over their units, but under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) a commander must take a detached, quasi-judicial stance towards certain disciplinary proceedings such as a court-martial. If UCI has occurred, the results of a court-martial may be legally challenged and in some cases overturned.

During World War II, mass mobilization resulted in an unprecedented proportion of the US population serving in the armed forces. Over 2 million courts martial were performed under the then-governing Articles of War, and large portion of the population was exposed to military justice. The reaction was not positive. The public and Congress perceived the Articles of War to grant too much authority to commanders, with harsh and arbitrary results. Infamously, some commanders would issue reprimands called "skin letters" to members of courts-martial who had been too lenient. Congress enacted the UCMJ to engraft civilian forms of due process into the military justice system, while at the same time maintaining the unique authority of the commander.

Under the new system, commanders retain significant formal powers over the military justice system. They refer charges to courts-martial, choose from among their subordinates to be members of the panel (the jury), and can authorize or waive entirely the punishment adjudged at trial. However, courts-martial are now presided over by military judges, and commanders are specifically directed to remain detached from the proceedings through Article 37 of the UCMJ.

Article 37 of the UCMJ is the statutory basis for unlawful command influence. It states, in part:

'

Courts have devised a complex test to sift cases for UCI. First, courts require that the defense produce some evidence to support an allegation of UCI. Once a court is satisfied that the defense has met this "burden of production," responsibility shifts to the government to persuade the court, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the UCI did not prejudice the accused. The government could show 1) the underlying facts did not occur, 2) the facts do not constitute improper influence, or 3) if there was UCI, it did not prejudice the defendant.

There are numerous ways that a commander exerts authority, both specifically within the military justice process and over subordinates generally. Each method of asserting authority yields a new way of improperly influencing a judicial proceeding.

...
Wikipedia