Title: Ruling: Def Motion to Merge Charges as UMC for Findings and Sentence, 6 Aug 13

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text: UNITED STATESOF AMERICAManning, Bradley E.PFCU.S.Army,HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,Joint Base Myer-Henderson HallFortMyer,Virginia 22211))^)))^^RULINGS Defense MotionToMerge Charges asUnreasonable Multiplicationof Charges for Findingsand Sentence6August2013On 30 July 2013, the Defense filed three motions to merge specifications forunreasonable multiplication of charges (UMC) forfindingsand sentence(AE 626-628) seekingthe following relief:1. Merge specifications4and6of Charge 11 forfindingsbecause the stealing,purloining, or knowing conversion (SPKC)ofboth the ClDNElraq(ClDNEl) and CIDNEAfghanistan(ClDNEA)databases were one transaction.2. Merge specifications5and7ofCharge 11 forfindingsbecause the accusedcommunicated the ClDNE-1 and ClDNE-A databases as one transaction.3. Merge the following categories of specifications for sentencing:aArticlel34(18USC^641)withArticlel34(18USC^793(e))andArticlel34(18U.S.C.^ 1030(a)(1))offenses as the SPKCand communication involve the same databases:(1) Specifications4and5of Charge IE the C1DNE-1 database containing more than380,000 records belong to the United States government and Specifications6and7of Charge 11:the CIDNEAdatabase containing more than 90,000 records belonging to the United Statesgovernment;(2) Specifications8and9ofCharge 11: the United States Southern Commanddatabase containing more than 700 records belonging to the United States government;(3) Specifications 12and 13 of Charge IL the Department ofState NetCentricDiplomacy (NCD)database containing more than 250,000 records belonging to the United Statesgovernment; andbArticlel34(18USC^641)andArticle92:(1) Specification8of Charge IL the United States Southern Command database andSpecification2of Charge 111 involvingaviolationofalawful general regulation by addingunauthorized software toaSecret Internet Protocol Router Network computer;APPELLATEEXHIBIT^^^PAGEREFERENCED:PAGEOF^PAGE^(2) Specification 12ofCharge 11: the Department ofState NetCentric Diplomacydatabase and Specification3of Charge 111 involvingaviolationofalawful general regulation byadding unauthorized software toaSecret Internet Protocol Router Network computer;(3) Specification16of Charge 11 involvingaportion ofthe United States Forces^Iraq Microsoft Outlook /Sharepoint Exchange Server Global Address List belonging to theUnited States government and Specification4of Charge 111 involvingaviolationofalawfulgeneral regulation by using an information system inamanner other than its intended purpose.OnlAugust 2013,the Government filedaresponse to each ofthe three defense motions(AE 632-634) opposing the Defense motions except for the Motion to consider specifications5and7of Charge 11 as UMC for sentencing and specification4of Charge 111 as UMC forsentencing with specification16of Charge ILTheLaw^1. Military law recognizes the concepts ofUMC forfindingsand UMC for sentencing. Nonexclusive factors considered by courts in determining whether offenses areaUMC for findingsor sentence include whether: (1)each charge and specification is aimed at distinctly separatecriminal acts; (2)the number of charges and specifications misrepresent or exaggerate theaccused'scriminality;(3)the number of charges and specifications unreasonably increases theaccused'sptmitive exposure; and(4) there is any evidence ofprosecutorial overreaching or abuseinthedraftingofcharges^^^7^^^^^^^.^v^^^^^^^55MJ334(CAAF 2001)2. Charges that are notaUCM forfindingsmayaUCM for sentencing where the nature of theharm requiresaremedythat focuses more appropriately on punishmenL ^^^^^^^i^^^^^^v.C^^^^^^/^71MJ19(CAAF2012)3. Successive withdrawalsofftmds ftom different accounts through stolen automatic tellermachine cards are separate offenses even ifthe withdrawals occurred at substantially the sametime and place. ^.i^.v.Bf^^^^^^ 20 M.J. 712 (A.C.M.R. 1985); ^^^^^^^^.^.v.^^/^^^^^^^^,1999WL35021445 (ArmyCLCrimApp 1999)Conclusions ofLaw^UMC for findings-merge specilrcations4and6of Charge I I and speci^cations5and7ofCharge I L1. Speci^cations4and6of Charge I I . PFC Manning had the specific intent to deprive theGovernment ofthe use and benefit ofthe records at the time he extracted the ClDNE-lsigacts onorabout3January2010. PFC Manning had the specific intent to deprive the Government oftheuse and benefit of the records at the time he extracted the CIDNE-A sigacts, on or about7January 2010. The Court does not find that PFC Manning stole and purloined the ClDNE-1 andCIDNE-A sigacts on the same day. Even ifthe Court did find that the stealing and purloining ofthe ClDNE-1 and ClDNE^A sigacts occurred on the same day,the logic ofBf^^^^^ and.^^^^^^^^^^^ is persuasive. As in these cases, PFC Manning had to access separate databases toextract the ClDNEIandClDNE-Asigacts.These were successive access/extractions thatconstitute separate and distinct18U.S.C.^641/Article 134 offenses forfindingsunder the first^^^^^^.^ factor. The charges do not misrepresent or exaggerate PFC Manning'scriminality orunreasonably increase his punitive exposure. There is no evidence ofprosecutorial overreaching. The Defense motion to merge specifications4and6of Charge 11 forfindingsisdenied.2. S^ecilications5and7of Charge H.(a) The parties agree that PFC Manning transmitted the ClDNE-1 and CIDNE-Arecordson the same day. The gravamen of thel8U.S,C,^793(e)/Article 134 offenses in specifications5and7ofCharge 11, is the willful transmission of national defense information toaperson notentitled to receive iL Specification5of Charge 11 charges the willftil transmission ofthe portionofClDNE-1 database containing more than 380,000 records belong to the United StatesgovemmenL Specification7of Charge 11 charges the willfiil transmission of the portion of theCIDNE-A database containing more than 90,000 records belonging to the United StatesgovemmenL These are separate matters of defense information. The transmission of eachconstitutesaviolationof18USC^793(e)/Article 134, UCMJ underthe first^^^^^^factorThefact that the transmissions may have occurred at the same time or simultaneously is irrelevant forunreasonable multiplication offindingsanalysis. Charging the volume ofnational defenseinformation transmitted ftom both the ClDNE-1 and ClDNEAdatabases in two separatespecifications does not misrepresent or exaggerate PFC Manning'scriminality or unreasonablyincrease his punitive exposure. The prosecution has not overreached in chargingPFC Manningasithasinspecifications5and7ofChargelL Considering all ofthe ^^^^^^^ factors, the Courtdoes not find specifications5and7of Charge llaUMC forfindings,TheDefense motion tomerge these offenses forfindingsis denied.(b) The Government does not object to the Court treating these offenses as one forsentencing. As such, the Court will fteatspecifications5and7asaUMC for sentencing.UMC for sentencing-merge specifications 4, 5,6, and7of Charge I I , s^eci^cations^and9of Charge I I , specifications 12 and 13 of Charge I I , and speci^cations 2,3, and4of ChargeHIwithspecifications^,12,andl6ofChargeIIrespectively.The^^^^^^factorsapplydifferently to determining whether there isaUMC forfindingsand for sentencing.(a) The Government concedes that specification4ofCharge 111 is UMC for sentencingwith specification16of Charge IL In this case, PFC Manning committed the Article 92violations in specifications2and3of Charge 111 as part ofaconnected chain of events involvingthe SPKCoffenses in specifications8and 12 of Charge 11, respectively. For sentencing purpose,the Court applied the ^^^^^^ factors and finds each pair of specifications(specification2ofCharge lll/specification8of Charge 11; specification3of Charge Ill/specification 12of Charge11; specification4of Charge 111/specification16of Charge 11)aUMC for sentencing.(b) With respect to the18U.S.C.^641/Article 134 offenses in specifications4, 6, 8,and12ofCharge11andthe18USC^793(e)/Articlel34offensesinspecifications5,7,and9ofChargellandthel8USC^1030(a)(1)/Article134offenseinspecification13ofChargell,theCourtfindsthatthel8USC^793(e)/Articlel34andthe18USC^1030(a)(1)/Articlel34transmission offense involve the same orasubset ofthe records that formed the ^^^ofthe18USC^641/Article 134 SPKCoffenses The CourtruledinAE 78 thatthese specificationswere notaUMC for findings. Under the unique facts ofthis case, the Court applies the ^^^^^^^factors and finds that punishing specifications4, 6,8,and 12 of Charge 11 separately ftomspecifications5,7,9,and 13,respectively,ofCharge 11 unreasonably increases PFC Manning'spunitive exposure.As such, the Court will treat each pair of specifications(4and5of Charge 11;6and7of Charge 11,8and9ofCharge 11, and 12andl3of Charge 11) as one for sentencingpurposes. Theseoffenses are notaUMC forfindings,thus merger ofthe offenses is notappropriate. Each specification remains asastand-alone offense for findings.(c) The Government concedes specifications5and7of Charge 11 are UMC forsentencing,however,applyingthe^^^^^^factors,theCourtfindsthatspecifications4and6ofCharge 11 are aimed at distinctly separate criminal acts and the Government has not over-reachedor exaggerated PFC Manning'scriminality or unfairly increased his punitive exposure.Specifications4and6of Charge 11 are notaUMC for sentencing. Specifications5and7ofCharge 11 are UMC for sentencing with specifications4and6of Charge 11,respectively.Theresulting 20 year maximum sentence for all four specifications does not exaggerate the accused'spunitive sentencing exposure.Ruling^The Defense Motionstomergespecificationsforunreasonablemultiplicationofcharges (UMC) forfindingsand sentence is GRANTED INPART.TheCourtwilltreatthefollowing pairs ofspecifications as one each for sentencing purposes:1.2.3.4.5.6.7.specification2of Charge 111 with specification8ofCharge 11;specification3ofCharge 111 with specification 12of Charge 11;specification4of Charge 111 with specificationl6of Charge 11;specification4of Charge 11 with specification5of Charge 11;specification6ofCharge 11 with specification7of Charge 11;specification8of Charge 11 with specification9of Charge 11;specification 12 ofCharge 11 with specification 13 ofCharge ILThe Court'sruling reduces the maximum confinement that may be imposed ftom 136 years to 90years.SoORDEREDthis6^dayofAugust2013DENISEREINDCOL,JAChiefJudge,1^^ Judicial Circuit

e-Highlighter

Click to send permalink to address bar, or right-click to copy permalink.

Un-highlight all Un-highlight selectionu Highlight selectionh