No. 25-1182

Anton Soloshenko v. United States

Lower Court: Armed Forces
Docketed: 2026-04-15
Status: Pending
Type: Paid
Tags: court-martial due-process-clause fourteenth-amendment jury-unanimity sixth-amendment uniform-code-of-military-justice
Latest Conference: N/A
Question Presented (from Petition)

In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020), this Court held that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a "trial . . . by an impartial jury," as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, requires that criminal convictions adjudged by juries be unanimous not just in federal civilian courts, but in state courts as well.

Service members and civilians prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in contrast, can be convicted by a three-fourths vote of a court-martial panel of lay members. This rule applies not only to allegations of military-specific offenses, but also to trials for alleged common-law crimes unrelated to military service. Often, the only thing depriving a court-martial defendant of the protection of a unanimous verdict requirement is the sovereign's choice of the forum in which to prosecute.

Does the Constitution preclude a court-martial panel of lay members from convicting a defendant of a criminal offense by a non-unanimous vote?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Constitution precludes a court-martial panel of lay members from convicting a defendant of a criminal offense by a non-unanimous vote

Docket Entries

2026-04-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 15, 2026)
2026-02-04
Application (25A879) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until April 9, 2026.
2026-01-28
Application (25A879) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 8, 2026 to April 9, 2026, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Anton Soloshenko, et al.
Frederick James JohnsonAir Force Appellate Defense Division, Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent