Case No. 19-108 & No. 19-184 | C.A.A.F.
October 13, 2020
Preview by Jessica Mugler, Associate
In United States v. Briggs, consolidated with United States v. Collins, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred when it acquitted a rapist by applying a five-year statute of limitations to rapes committed by members of the armed forces between 1986 and 2006.
In 2005, then-Airman First Class (“A1C”) DK worked on then-Captain Michael Briggs’ squadron. One night after drinking heavily, Captain Briggs went to A1C DK’s room and “forced her to have sex with him even though she said ‘no’ and ‘stop’ and tried to roll away.” United States v. Briggs, 78 M.J. 289, 290 (C.A.A.F. 2019), cert. granted, 205 L. Ed. 2d 333 (Nov. 15, 2019). In 2013, now-Staff Sergeant (“SSgt”) DK called now-Lieutenant Colonel (“Lt. Col.”) Briggs and recorded a discussion of the incident. Lt. Col. Briggs told her, “I will always be sorry for raping you.” Id. With this recording and other evidence, the Government charged Lt. Col. Briggs with rape, and a general court martial convicted him in 2014.
Lt. Col. Briggs did not raise the statute of limitations as a defense before or during his trial, but he did raise it on appeal. From 1986 to 2006, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces precedent held that there was no statute of limitations for a rape offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”), which provided no statute of limitations for offenses that could be punished with death and a five-year period of limitations for other offenses. See 10 U.S.C. 843(a) (2000). In 2006, Congress amended this section of the UCMJ to specifically provide no statute of limitations for rape offenses. See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163, §§ 552(e), 553, 119 Stat. 3136, 3263–64; 10 U.S.C. 843(a) (2006). Then, in 2018, the court overturned existing precedent, holding that because no one could constitutionally receive the death penalty for rape, the UCMJ applied a five-year statute of limitations to rapes that occurred between 1986 and 2006. See United States v. Mangahas, 77 M.J. 220, 224-25 (C.A.A.F. 2018). As a result, the parties agree that if the 2006 amendment does not apply retroactively, then the five-year statute of limitations applies to the 2005 conduct in this case.
The Court of Appeals held that the amendment does not apply retroactively and that the Government was thus time-barred from bringing a rape charge against Lt. Col. Briggs. See Briggs, 78 M.J. at 294. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the lower court was correct to set aside the rape conviction. If the Court decides that the amendment applies retroactively, the conviction will be upheld.
The Government argues that Congress intended the amendment to apply retroactively because it meant to merely maintain the status quo by codifying the court’s existing precedent establishing no statute of limitations for rape offenses. Lt. Col. Briggs, on the other hand, argues that Congress was creating new law, rather than maintaining the status quo, and did not intend retroactive application. He asserts that Congress did not intend retroactivity because (1) the amendment does not apply exclusively to rape and (2) even if Congress had believed it was merely codifying existing law, this belief would not prove Congress’ intention to have the amendment apply retroactively. Brief for Respondents at 44–45, United States v. Briggs, 19-108 & 19-104 (U.S. filed Feb. 12, 2020). He also argues that the presumption against retroactivity and presumption in favor of repose should apply here because Congress was silent as to the amendment’s retroactivity.