These kinds of things have added to the personnel and support for the organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. FORD. For those new responsibilities that you have enumerated will you show the number of personnel involved in each and the extra cost that has resulted from the establishment of these activities or the assignment of responsibilities? Mr. LOFTIS. If I may, I will supply that for the record, too, sir. (The information follows:) Personnel and cost of additional Joint Chiefs of Staff activities, approved since July Activity 1, 1960 Mr. FORD. That is all. Thank you very much, Mr. Loftis. MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1961. SALARIES AND EXPENSES, COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS WITNESSES HON. R. E. QUINN, CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS ALFRED C. PROULX, CLERK OF THE COURT, COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS J. A. WYLIE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND FINANCE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE sir. Mr. RILEY. The committee will come to order. Judge Quinn, we are glad to have you before the committee today, Judge QUINN. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. RILEY. I believe you have a statement for us? Judge QUINN. I have, sir. Mr. RILEY. We would be very glad to hear from you. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE QUINN Judge QUINN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am glad to appear before you to submit for your consideration the appropriation request of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals for fiscal year 1962. The court will be 10 years old in June. Most of you will recall that 10 years ago Congress enacted the Uniform Code of Military Justice. By this legislation the system of courts-martial established by the Articles of War, the Articles for the Government of the Navy, and the disciplinary laws of the Coast Guard, for all practical purposes, was terminated. In its stead Congress created a new system designed to parallel the Federal courts. To provide the tone and the direction for this system, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, consisting of three judges appointed from civilian life, was established. From the outset, we have tried to discharge our duties with the intent of the Congress clearly in mind. Through fiscal year 1960, a total of 1,594 opinions were written and published, and the 87 opinions published so far in fiscal year 1961 bring our total to 1,681. These opinions are published in 11 volumes of the reports of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. With decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and of the Federal courts of appeals as our principal guides, we have sought to perfect the system of justice contemplated by the uniform code. Neither time nor this occasion permit a thorough analysis of these holdings. However, we can call attention to the fact that many of the principal areas of congressional concern about courts-martial, which existed during World War II, have now been erased. Approximately 8,700 attorneys have been admitted to practice before the court. Every major law review of this country has published articles on various aspects of the law governing courts-martial. The newspaper syndicates report regularly the opinions of the court, and, depending on the subject matter, give many of them nationwide circulation. The judges appear frequently before bar associations and other civic organizations throughout the country, advising the civilian community of developments in the field of military justice, and instilling confidence in its administration. Finally, the court's opinions are cited with increasing frequency by courts of appeals of Federal and State jurisdictions. Room for improvement there will always be. Our current report to the Congress in compliance with article 67 (g) of the code refers to these areas and advances our recommendations for modifications which will preserve the basic purpose of the code, while assuring increased efficacy. Principally, these recommendations seek to strengthen the position of the law officer, assure the independence of boards of review, and clarify the status of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. We hope the members of this committee will give these matters attention and support. For the record, I wish to submit the attached statistical report on the number, status, and disposition of all cases docketed with the court through December 31, 1960. Mr. RILEY. Without objection, the report will be placed in the record at this point. (The matter referred to follows:) 1 Discrepancy in total due to some cases coming up both on petitions and certificates, petitioned or certified twice, and 5 mandatory cases filed as petitions after 2d board of review opinion. 232 cases involving 37 accused sentenced to death; 2 additional cases involving 2 flag officers; 2 cases filed twice. Court action due (30 days). Awaiting replies___. Certificates-- Opinions rendered_. 1,497 12, 618 2 10 303 45 132 Disposed of by order setting aside findings and sentence__ 46 16 ⚫ 344 331 Petition for reconsideration of petition for a new trial.... Motion to reopen_ Completed cases- Petitions denied__ Petitions withdrawn... Petitions dismissed.. Certificates withdrawn. Disposed of on motion (w/o opinion)_ Disposed of by order setting aside findings and sentence.. Remanded to board of review__. By opinion--- Pending completion--- Opinions pending_. 2 24 289 40 1 36 1 1 1 14, 784 12, 618 303 10 6 38 3 132 1.674 99 19 8 1 46 16 2 Discrepancy of 159 in total is due to more than 1 action taken on individual cases. 42 opinions released in docket 8176. 1,674 cases were disposed of by 1,657 opinions (68 cases remanded by order). Mr. RILEY. Thank you very much, Judge Quinn. We will insert in the record at this point pages 6 and 7 of the justifications. (The pages referred to follow :) At the end of fiscal year 1960 a total of 14,235 cases had been docketed with the Court of Military Appeals, for an average of 1,582 cases per year since the court's establishment in 1951. As of December 31, 1960, the court had rendered 1,657 written major opinions, the first having been released on November 8, 1951. This total averages an annual output of 173 written opinions, with each judge of the three-member court contributing an average of 58 major opinions annually. This substantial opinion workload has been carried on in addition to the review functions which the court must perform under article 67(b) (3) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, wherein the judges have considered and passed upon an average of 1,528 petitions for grant of review per year since its organization. TRAVEL POLICY Mr. RILEY. Judge Quinn, the detail of your request shows an increase of $2,000 for travel. Would you comment on just what travel is contemplated and for what purpose? Judge QUINN. Each of the judges has gone out to the European Commands and Judge Ferguson went out to Japan last year as well as to Hawaii and to Alaska. We have attempted in the last 4 or 5 years, Mr. Chairman, to get around to as many of our major commands as possible in order to talk not only to the officers in the Judge Advocate General's department, but to our commanding officers and to our enlisted men in order to determine what in their opinion we can do to improve the system of military justice and to find out what complaints, if any, they might have had to make. |