No. 20-489

Pedro M. Bess v. United States

Lower Court: Armed Forces
Docketed: 2020-10-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: convening-authority court-martial due-process equal-protection fifth-amendment military-justice racial-discrimination standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment Securities
Latest Conference: 2021-06-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether 10 U.S.C. § 825 violates the Fifth Amendment

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Exercising his authority under 10 U.S.C. § 825, a military commander hand-selected ten White members to sit on a general court-martial panel—the military equivalent of a jury—for a Black man charged with sexual misconduct against White women. Before selecting this all-White panel, the commander received a report showing the White women first identified their perpetrator not by a name, but by the color of his skin: Black. As the members entered the courtroom, the accused Black man, Hospital Corpsman Petty Officer Second Class (HM2) Pedro Bess, leaned towards his counsel and asked about the panel’s racial composition. His counsel stood, presented the issue to the military judge, challenged the panel on equal protection grounds, and moved for discovery. Reasoning that she could not see the members’ race, the military judge found no issue with the all-White panel. Later, the hand-selected White members convicted HM2 Bess. The lower courts affirmed without additional fact-finding, and to date, no one has answered HM2 Bess’s question about his panel: “Why aren’t there any Black people?” The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether 10 U.S.C. § 825, as applied in Petitioner’s case, violates the Fifth Amendment. 2. Whether the lower court erred in declining to remand Petitioner’s case for additional factfinding.

Docket Entries

2021-06-21
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2021-05-28
Reply of petitioner Pedro Bess filed. (Distributed)
2021-05-28
Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the filing of a reply pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed.
2021-05-19
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2021-04-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 19, 2021.
2021-04-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 19, 2021 to May 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-03-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 19, 2021.
2021-03-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 18, 2021 to April 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-02-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 18, 2021.
2021-02-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 16, 2021 to March 18, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-12-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 16, 2021.
2020-11-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 16, 2020 to February 15, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-11-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 16, 2020.
2020-11-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 16, 2020 to December 16, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-10-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2020)

Attorneys

Pedro Bess
Clifton Earl Morgan IIIU.S. Navy JAG Corps, Petitioner
Clifton Earl Morgan IIIU.S. Navy JAG Corps, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent