Army judge rules that sex-assault case requires unanimous verdict for officer to be found guilty

Col. Charles Pritchard, an Army judge in Kaiserslautern, Germany, said allowing a nonunanimous guilty verdict in the trial of Lt. Col. Andrew Dial would violate due process by denying him the same rights that civilian defendants enjoy.

In a pretrial decision Monday, Pritchard wrote that he will therefore instruct the military panel judging Dial that “any finding of guilty must be by unanimous vote.”

The ruling came in response to a motion by attorneys for Dial, a member of Allied Forces North Battalion, based in Belgium. Dial is charged with three counts of sexual assault.

Details about the allegations were not included in the ruling or in an Army court docket. A court martial, however, is set for Monday in Kaiserslautern.

A factor in Pritchard’s decision was an April 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that banned nonunanimous verdicts in state criminal cases. Oregon was the last state to allow split jury verdicts.

The court’s 6-3 decision in Ramos v. Louisiana said state courts are also bound by the longstanding requirement in federal courts that all jurors must be in agreement for a defendant to be convicted.
Army Lt. Col. Andrew Dial is facing sexual assault charges in a court-martial in Kaiserlautern, Germany, that is due to start Monday. An Army judge ruled this week that a nonunanimous guilty verdict will not be sufficient for conviction in the case.

Army Lt. Col. Andrew Dial is facing sexual assault charges in a court-martial in Kaiserlautern, Germany, that is due to start Monday. An Army judge ruled this week that a nonunanimous guilty verdict will not be sufficient for conviction in the case. (LinkedIn)

But the Supreme Court decision made no mention of the applicable standard in military courts. One reason for that is courts have repeatedly found that the Constitution gives Congress power to “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.”

Those rulings treated the military justice system as a congressional matter, so courts previously held that some protections for civilian defendants don’t apply to service members. However, Ramos v. Louisiana has created a churn in the military legal community.