Legal Definitions - Court of Military Review

The term Court of Military Review refers to the historical name for what is now known as a Court of Criminal Appeals within the United States military justice system. These courts serve as the primary appellate bodies for service members convicted by courts-martial. Their essential function is to review the legality and fairness of convictions and sentences handed down by military trial courts.

Specifically, these courts examine the trial record to ensure that:

• The evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.
• No significant legal errors occurred during the trial that prejudiced the accused.
• The sentence imposed was appropriate and legally permissible.

There are separate Courts of Criminal Appeals for each branch of the armed forces (Army, Navy-Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard), and they operate similarly to civilian appellate courts, providing an important layer of oversight and due process for military personnel.

Here are some examples of situations where a case would have been reviewed by a Court of Military Review (or its modern equivalent):

• Example 1: Reviewing a Conviction for Legal Error

  A Marine Corps sergeant was convicted by a general court-martial for unauthorized absence and received a dishonorable discharge. The sergeant's appellate attorney believes that the military judge improperly admitted certain evidence during the trial, which significantly prejudiced the defense. The attorney would file an appeal with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (formerly the Court of Military Review) to argue that this legal error warrants overturning the conviction or ordering a new trial.

  This example illustrates the court's role in scrutinizing the trial proceedings for legal mistakes that might have affected the fairness of the outcome.

• Example 2: Challenging the Sufficiency of Evidence

  An Air Force officer was found guilty of dereliction of duty and sentenced to a reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay. The officer maintains that the prosecution failed to present enough credible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The officer's case would be reviewed by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (formerly the Court of Military Review) to determine if the evidence on record was indeed sufficient to support the conviction.

  This demonstrates the court's function in evaluating whether the prosecution met its burden of proof based on the evidence presented at the court-martial.

• Example 3: Appealing an Excessive Sentence

  An Army specialist was convicted of a minor assault and battery charge. While not disputing the conviction, the specialist believes the sentence—which included a lengthy confinement and a bad-conduct discharge—was unduly harsh given the circumstances and the specialist's otherwise exemplary service record. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals (formerly the Court of Military Review) would review the sentence to ensure it was appropriate and not disproportionate to the offense, and that no legal errors occurred during the sentencing phase.

  This highlights the court's authority to review the appropriateness of a sentence, ensuring it aligns with legal standards and the facts of the case.