Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

WILLIAM C FORESTER and TRACEY BRYANT European

Theater Operations Board of Review Opinions Volume

6

CONfDENTl~l

(11) BrBllch Office of The JUige JdTocate General

with the European Theater of Operations

APO 871

BOARD OF REVIEf

ETO 1922

UNITED STATES) lEslEfN BASE SECTION SERVICES ) Oll StllPLY IDJROPEAN TEEATER OF

Te ) OPERATICNSe )

PriTate WUJJAM C FORESTER ) Trial by GCM convened at (34686405) and Printe nuDEY ) Whittington Barracks Lichfield BRYANT (34686280) both ot ) Staftordshire England 1718 425th Military Police Escort ) ahrch 1944bull Sentences Each accusedbull GuardCODigtampDYbull ) disho~orable discharge total torshy

) fei tures aDd continell8nt at hard ) labor for life thited States ) Peni tentiery Lewisburg PeDilsylshy) Tania

HOLDJNG by the BOARD OF REVllf RITER Val m-lSCIKgtTEN end SARGENT Judge Advocates

i The record d trial in the case of the soldiers DSImd above has

been examined by the Board ot Reviewgt

2 The accused were tried upcn the tollowing Clerge and Specifications

CHARGls Violation ot the 92nd Article of Were Specifications (Ja ~nded at trial before arraignmnt) i

In that PriTate William c Farester 425th Military Police Escort Guard Company Rugeley Staffordshire EnglandPriTate Tracey (NMI) Bryant 425th Milishytary Police Escort Guard Company Rugeley StaffordshyshireEngland acting jointly and in pursuance of a COlllllOll intent did at Rugeley Staffordshire Eagland on or about 4 March 1944 with melice atoreshythought 1ti lfully dal iberately feloniously lllllawshytully and with premeditation kill one Teclmician Fifth Grade Robert Stafford Conpany D 390th Engineer Regiment (General Service) Rugeley Staffordshyshire England a human being by striking him with their bands kicking him with their feet by strangshyling him and abandoning him

coN FIDENTIAL

(12)

The accused were originally charged jointly with Private Drewey F Joyce Private Dennis N Branch and Private Ira F Hall all of 425th Military Police Escort Guerd Company Rugeley Staffordshire England with the murder of Stafford Upon iootions on behUf of the three soldiers last above named the court severed their trials and amnded the Specification by striking their ~s and unit designations therefrom The trial then proceeded as to accused Forester and Bryant upon the Charge and Specificashytion as eroended

Fach accused pleaded not guilty to and was found guilty of the Charge and eroended Specification No evidence of previous convictions was introduced as to accused Forester Evidence was introduced of one previous conviction of accused Bryant by special court-martial for absence without leave tor 13 days in violation of the 6lst Article of war Each accused was sentenced to be disbalorably discharged the service to forfeit all pay and allowances due or to become due and to be confined at hard labor for the term of his natural life at such place as the reviewing authority may direct The reviewing authority approved each of the sentences designated the United States Penitentiary Lewisburg Pennsyl vania bull as the place of confinement of each accused and forwarded the record of trial for action pursuant to the provisions of Article of War Stbull

3bull The prosecutions evidence summarizes as fallows

On and prior to 4 March 1944 there was located a prisoner of war camp about one and one-half miles south westerly from the tolVIl of RUgeley Staffordshire England A public road connecting Rugeley and Hednesford a town in Staffordshire passed i~diately in front of the camp and afforded access to it (Rl2)

Technician Fifth Grade Robert Stafford and Technician Fifth Grade William H Wal ton colored soldiers both of Company D 390th Engineer Regiment stationed at the prisoner of war C8Jlilbull went on proper pass into the town of Rugeley on the evening of 4 March 1944bull They arrived in the town about 8 pm and visited several public houses and a carnival They left Rugeley between 10 pm and 10sl5 pm on their return to their camp by way of the aforesaid public road (Rl316) There had been a fall of snow that evening and while it was dark there was a certain degree of luminosity (Rl6) bull Stafford end Wal ton passed two groups of soldiers wnich were proceeding on the highway in the saim direction as they travelshyed (Rl342) bull After passill8 the second group one of its Il8mbers shouted to Walton and Stafford bullHey waitn The two colored men did not halt Shortly afterwards another voice from the soldier group called bullHey wait I am talking to youbull Stafford replied

bullwe havent got time We are on our way to camp We havent tiim to stand here in the cold and fool with you You had better wake upbull (Rl3)

Walton and Stafford resllII2d their cotr se end again the voice called

bullOK Whether you wait or not you black saishy

- 2 middotcoNEIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

(13)

of-a-bitch well get youbull (Rl3)

The two colored soldiers ignored the response They were joined by an English sailor and the three proceeded in the direction of the camp (Rl4) A few mormnta later the sailor and Wal ton and Stafford were overtaken by two of the white soldiers A conversation ensued Stafford and Wal ton then resllD3d their walk towards ~ The former looked back and seid

bullLets go fellows it looks like theyre goshying to start sormthing lets gobull (Rl4)

The colored nen commenced to run but were again overtaken by two white American soldiers One of them expressed the desire to fight The two colored men retreated Stafford stated to the two white nen that they were making a mistake and declared he did not know bullwhat it was aboutbull One of them attempted to strike Stafford but such action met the ob)3 ct ion of his white companion (Rl4) bull In the course of the argushyment which followed Stafford protested

bullDont hit me dont hit me Let me talk to youbull (Rl5)

Two sailors arrived at the scene and attempted to stop the fight (Rl5) bull Walton freed himselt and ran to the prisoner of war canp H3 reported the incident to his company duty officer First Lieutenant EDrell T Hasty (Rl532)

On the night of 4 March 19441 Privates Lawrence L Mgtss Drewey FJoyce Dennis N Branch Footer M Coats Ira F Hall and both accused all ot 425th Jilitary Police Escort Guard Company then stationed at the prisoner of war camp were at a public house at or near Rugeley (R202l 42) At about lOrOO pm the named soldiers left the public house and proceeded in the direction of the prisoner of war camp on the public road above described (R202142) Bryant and Hall accompanied by some girls walked in advance tallowed by Forester Joyce and Branch (R42) Coats walked by himself (R20) and vbsa followed in company with an English girl in lmiform (R2l) bull About half way to the prisoner of war camp Bryant and Hall engaged in an argument with a colored American soldier Forester bullran into the threebull and the caler ed soldier was knocked to the ground (R42) Joyce intervened in an apparent effort to atop the disturbance but he was held by eithcrFarester or Bryant (E42) Both Forester and Bryant beat and kicked the prostrate colored soldier who protested bullLet m alonebull and bullDon 1t meas with mbull (R43) bull

Charles Albert Martin Naval Air Fitter Harold Arthur Thompaai Air Mechanic Second Class Arthur James Pyatt Air M3chanic all of the Royal Naval Air Service and a fourth unnarood member of that Service were in Rug3ley attending a dance on the night of 4 March l 944 (R23 2528) bull Mirtin and the unnamed rating le ft the dance at about lO iJO pm and proshyceeded on foot ai the Rugeley - Hednesford road in the direction ot Hednesfcrd Thompson and Pyatt departed from the dance a few minutes later and followed on the Rugeley - Hednesford road The latter two at

llflt ~ l - 3 - vlJ Hmiddotiuc~ middot

CONFIDENTIAL

(14)

a point about 400 yards trom the prisoner of war camp gate heard a bit of scuffling (R23252728) They waited until Thompson and Pyatt joinshyed them and the four men proceeded together until ho white Amen can soldiers whO said that they were under restrictions asked them to stop a fight between bulltwo black Americans and four white onesbull (R242628) Proceeding further the Englishmen discovered a

black man lying on the ground on the left hand side of the road and two white Americans with another black one dragging him aero ss the road and he was asking them if he might ask a question he was saying Wait a minute fellows let me ask a question (R23)

The ratings intervened and tried to stop the disorder A whiie American eoldier addressed the Englishmen thusz

You go on your way We dont want any trouble with the English sailorsbull (R232628)

The sailors being also 1 under restrictionsbull then left the scene and went to the prisoner of war camp gate and reported the affair to the Corporal of the Guard As the four men left the disturbance Martin Thompson and Pyatt saw a wniie soldier jump from the grass verge on the side of the road and land with his feetbullon the back of the prostrate black soldier (R232426 27 28) At this poirt in the affair Thompson and Pyatt heard one of the white soldiers say Lets kill tbis t---- black bastard 1 (R26 28)

Evan John Savage a British civilian residing at 76 Cannock Road Rugeley his wife his brother-in-law Brymoore Owen and sister-in-law Annie Owen the latter two of 2l Moreton Street Chadsmoor Staffordsnire on tbe evening of 4 March 1944 attended a wedding in Rugeley They left that town about 10 pm and walked in the direction of Hednesford on the aforesaid road As they proceeded along the road at about ll pm they heard the noise of a disturbance ahead of them (R293031) Upon proceedshying further they saw a colored soldier lying on the road with his head toshywards Rugeley (R2930) Two white Americans approached Savage and said to hima

Clear off if you donbullt want no troublebull R29)

SaTage replieda

I dont want no trouble but you cant leave a man in the road 1 (R29)

One of the soldiers answered

Leave him alone I put him (this damn nigger) in the middle of the road for the goddam truck to run over him as he is no good He has been

CONFIDENTIAL

(15)

out with a miite girl and out in the States we dont have anything to do with them We treat them like dogs The girls are lower tnan them for to go out with thembull (Rl930)

Saveges response wass

bullwell you cant do that Put him on the bank out of the way of the trafficbull (R2930)

The white soldier then pi eked up the colored soldier and placed him on the bank Mr and Mrs Savage a1d Mr and Mrs Owen then walked to the prison camp gate am reported the incident to the guard The two white soldiers followed them and pasCd through the gate wnistling while the Savages and Owens stood at the camp gate (R2930)

After Walton had informed Lieutenant Hasty of the incident they went to the place on the highway where the disturbance had occurred and after soma difficulty found Stafford on the ground Lieutenant Hasty could not feel Staffords heart beat Stafford was placed in a truck and was taken tu the 312th Smiddotation Hospital (Rl5 32)

Captain Morris lQeinerman Medi cal Corps examined Staffurd when he reached the hospita1 at about ll amp20 pm and pronounced him dead There was a laceration at the outer side of his left eye-brow a contused swollen area over toe lett cheekbone and SOIIX dried blood on the left side of his nose (R33) Captain Kleiner-man was of the opinion that Stafford had died wi tlin an hour prior to the examination (R34)

On b Maren 1944 Captain Samuel Kantor Medical Corps performed an autopsy on Staffords body Without objection the autopsy report (Pros Exl) was received in evidencemiddot (R35) Pertinent excerpts from the report are as follows

bullupon remonng the over-coat it is found that tne neck tie is pulled to the left and is markedly tightened around the neck exerting extrene pressure on the tissues beneath bull The knot of tne tie is so firm that it had to

be cut in order to be removed bull bull bull bull bull

This negro American soldier appearing abvut 30 years of age was dead wnen he was brough

(sic) to the hospital on 4 March 1944 at 2320 hours About an hour previous to admission he was alleged to have been involved in a fight with a number ofwnite American soldiers near Rugely about 300 yards from his camp External examination of the body disclosed a number of abrasions contusions lacerations and ecchymgtses His neck was markedly constricted just above the level of the hyoid bone by his

CONFIDENTIAL

(16)

neck-tie which was pulled tightly The neck especially on the le ft abOTe and below this constriction showed marked swelling ot the tissues That portion of the neck-tie aroUDd the neck measured 12 inches The collar of the ahirt that he wore was 16 inches The circumference of the neck was l5i inches X-ray examination ot the head neck face and chest as well as post-mortem examination disshyclosed no evidence of fracture of the skull facial bones cervial vertebrae Qr thorcic (sic) cage There was no gross evidence of damage to the brain or any of the thcracic or abdominal viscera There were a number of petechiae noted in the conjunctivae and the buccal mucous membranes There was marked oonshygestion of both lungs Post-mortem findings in this case are compatible with death due to strangulationbull (ProsExlpp25)

Accused Bryant signed a written statement when interviewed by Harold J JOOtzler Jent Criminal Investigation Department on 8 March 1944 (R44) The trial judge advocate with the ccncurrence of defense counsel cautioned the court that the statement should not be considered as evidence against accused Forester The statement was admitted in evidence as ProsEx4 (R45) with proier cautionary instructions from the law member The material part of the statement is as followss

bullI was born on the 28th July 1923bull I was inshyducted into the us bull Army in February 1943bull I have been overseas here in EDgland since the latter pert of January 1944bull

On Saturday 4 March 1944 I left my camp without a legal pass I knew I was going to be absent without official leave I left the camp thru the fence instead of going out thru the gate I was accompanied by Pvts Hall Joyce Moss Forrester Branch and Coats all members of my canpeny We left camp about 1930 hrs We went toward the town of Rugeley and stopped at the first pub on the right hand side of the road We all bad several drinks of beer and ale I bad about twelve pints of beermyself bull

Around cl os inc tiroo of the pub we all left I knew it to be near closing time beshycause the operator of the Pub came arotmd callshying time When we got out on the street most of the boys started toward camp but Hall and I lingered around a bit waiting for some WAAFs to come out of the Pub Hall amp I then started up the road toward camp with the

CONFIDENTIJL6 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(l)

ifAAFsbull When we got near about middle way to the CalllP Hall amp I and the WAAF 1s passed a bunch of American soldiers Just as were (sic) were alongside ot them I knew that Joyce Branch and Forrester were iart of the bunch of soldiers and the renaining two were colored boys Hall asked what was going on and Joyce answered it was just a little argwoont Hall decided to go on and said to IIB Lets go catch the girlsbull I followed after him I believe I walked about seventy-five yards just behind Hall and then Hall turned around and met me and said Lets go back and help our buddiesbull We never did catch up to the WAAFsbull When Hall amp I got back to the other fellows nanely Forrester Branch and Joyce and the two exgtlored boys they were already fightshying however I only saw that one exgtlored boy was left with Branch Joyce and Forrester I remember seeing Joyce and Forrester punching the colored boy with their fists The colored boy was pleading with them to leave him alone Even though the colored boy was pleading with them to leave him alone I decided to get in on the tight too I hit the colored boy about two or three times in the face with my left fist I think Forrester was hitting him at the same time I was and then the colored boy either fell down or was knocked down I stumbled down on top of the colored boy and while I was on top of him I hit him again about three times in the face with my left fist While I was down on top of the colorshyed boy hitting him Forrester was kicking him en the head face and shoulder Joyce ran toward me and hit me in the shoulder while I was punching the colored boy down on the ground and told m to come one (sic) as a truck was coming I jumped up off the colored boy and then ran away followshying Joyce Hall and Branch Forrester followed me We went thrU the fence of the camp and I went straight to my hut When I jumped off the colored boy I dont remember anyone picking him up The last I saw of him he was laying on his back on the groundbull

4 The prosecution specifically identified the accused Forester and Bryant as the immediate assailants of the deceased by means of the following evidence~

(a) - court room identification by Walton made during the course of his testimony of both accused as two of the white American soldiers who participated in the altercation wherein Stafford was killed (Rl5)

CONFI DENTl~L (18)

(b) - Testimony of Captain Richard E Lobuono Assistant Provost r~~rshal 10th Replacem3nt Depot that on the evening of 5 March 1944 Wal ton identified Joyce Forester and Bryant as three of the participants in the fi 1ht on the road on the night of 4 Ittrch 1944bull Wal ton selected the three men from a group of nine nen on two separate occasions and from different arrangements of the nine nen in the identification parades (Rl8l9)

(c) - Coats and llioss positive testimony that Forester and Bryantmiddotwere in the group of white soldiers who departed from the public house in Rugeley about 10 pm on the night of 4 March 1944 proceeded toshywards the prisoner of war camp on the Rugeley-1-ednesford road and who enshycountered two colored soldiers on the road and engaged in an argunent with them (R20-22)

(d) - Partial identification by Annie Owen of Bryant as one of the white soldiers seen by her on the occasion on the night of 4 March 1944 when she saw the body of a soldier in the road (RJl)

(e) - The evidence of Corporal Joseph Miko 440th Military Police Prisoner of War Processing Company that acting under crders at about 2JOO hours 4 M3rch 1944 he searched all barracks of the prisoner of war camp and found Bryant on his back in a stupor evidencillf intoxication with his clothes bulltusseled upbull and with mud on them abrasions on one of his hands and on the top of his hand and stains on his leggings and trousers which looked like blood (R3637)

(f) - Testimony of Major Bernard ONeill Prisoner of War Encloshysure No 2 that he observed accused Bryant about midnight 4-5 March 1944 and discovered blood on the buttons of Bryants overcoat blood on his legeings wnich was then moist and stains which appeared to be blood on his shoes There was also a fresh bruise on the second knuckle of his left hand (RJ9)

g) - Testimony of Captain Rudolph E Warnecke Medical Corps who made examination of the hands of both accused on 7 March 1941 Foresters examination showed a quarter inch scratch on the fourth finber dorswn of the left hand over the medial phalanx Bryants eXBJUnation revealed a scratch on the base of the ring finger dorsum left hand and also scratches on the distal end of the proximal phalanx and one on the distal end of the proximal phalanx of the fourth digit all on the dorsum The scratches had been inflicted more than 24 hours prior to the examination (R40)

(h) - Branchs testimony that Bryant and Forester engaeed in an argument and altercation with a colored soldier about 10i30 pm to 10i45 pm on 4 Larch 1944 on the Rugeley-Hednesford road and that both Bryant and Forester beat and kicked the negro after he had been knocked to the ground (R4243)

(i) - Evidence that Bryants trousers (ProsEx2) and leggings (ProsEx3) were found to be blood stained (RJ8394546)

- 8 CC1NFIDIN1 tL

CONFIDENTIAL

(19)

5bull Each accused elected to remain silent

The only testimony presented by the defense was that ot Private George Kohnke 440th Mili tary Police Prisoner of War Processing Company who stated that at the Prisoner of War camp gate between 10 pm and 12 midnight 4 March 1944 there were several civilians who conversed as to a bullscufflebull down the road from the gate (R48)

6 (a) - There is competent substantial evidence in the record ot trial identifying the accused Forester and Bryant as Staffords princishypal assailants Their presence at the scene of the homicide is establishshyed without contradiction Branchs testimony that ~he two accused beat and kicked the deceased and otherwise mistreated him stands unimpeached and undisputed Such direct and specific eTidence in connection with the circumstances and events set forth in paragraphs three and four hereof proved beyond reasonable doubt that the two present accused middotare primarily

responsible for Stafford bulls deeth The findings of the court in this reshyspect are fully supported by the evidence (CM ETO 78 Watts CM ETO 492 Lewis CM ETO 503 RichDxgtn~ CM ETO 531 McLurkin CM ETO 885 Van Horn CM ETO l36o Poer CM ETO l l Leatherberry CM ETO 1671 Matthews CM ETO 1673 Demiy CM ETO 2358 Pheil)

(b) - Beyond all doubt Staffords necktie was tightened about his neck during the assault and battery on him committed by the group of white soldiers which included the two accused The knot ot the tie was so tight that the post mgtrtem surgeon was compelled to cut it from his neck The proximate cause of deceaseds death was strangulation The record fails to reveal whether 1 t was Forester Bryant or one of the other of Staffords assailants who tightened the death noose about his throat

The distinctions between principals aiders and abetters have been abolished by Federal statutei

bullWhoever directly commits any act constituting an cpoundfense defined in any law of the Uc1 ted States or aids abets counsels commands induces or procures its commission is a principalbull (35 Statll52 USCriminal Code sec332 18 USCAseo5_p)

In the administration opound military justice the distinction betWeen principals aiders and abetters and accessories is not recognized (Winthrops Military Law and Precedents - Reprint p108)

The above statute and the rules ot law cognate thereto are applicable to this ease It was unnecessary for the prosecution to estabshylish that Fer ester and Bryant personally fashioned Staffords tie into a garrote and applied it as a death producing instrument In the assault on Stafford and in the oommission of the homicidal act which evolved therefrom the two accused were active and violent participants They were legally responsible not only for the individual acts cOllIlitted by each but also tor the acts of each and every participant in the illegal and wholly inex-

CONFIDENTi9 shy

CONFIDENTIAL (20)

cusable attack on the unoffending colored soldier The Board of Review has heretofore considered and analyzed the principle of law here involved in CM EnO 72 Jacobs and Farleyt CM ETO 393 ~ and Fikesa CM ETO 804 Ogletree et al CM ETO 895 PADavis et al CM ETO 1052 Geddies et ali CM ETO 1284 ADavis et al CM ETO 1453 Fowler In Tiew of the discussions contained in said holdings and the authorities therein cited further presentation of authorities and argument are Uilllecessary to supshyport the conclusion that both Fa- ester and Bryant are responsible as prinbull cipels for Staffords death

(c) - The deceased and his companion Walton were returning to their camp from Rugeley in a law abiding peaceable manner Fer ester and Bryant in company with Joyce Branch and Hall overtook them on a pubshylic highway In spite of the fact that the two colored soldiers on at least two occasions sought to evade conflict with them and retreated Forester andBryant persisted in their evident purpose ot provoking an altercation There is neither evidence nor inferences in the record of trial that either Stafford or Walton was the aggressor appositely the evidence is substantial that they were the victims of an unla lrful inexshycusable interference by the accused and companions which interference developed into a cruel battery on the deceased resultant in his death No question of self defense can arise fran the evidence Forester and Bryant were vicious aggressors tran beginning to end

1 Mllrder is the unla wful killing of a human being with malice aforethought Unlawful_bull means without legal justification or excuse

bull bull bull bull bull M9lice does not necessarily mean hatred or pershysonal ill-will toward the person killed nor an actual intent to take his lite or even to take acyone bulls life The use of the word aforeshythought does not mean that the malice must exist tor any particular time before commission of the act or that the intention tokill must have predoualy existed It is sutfic1ent that it exist at the time the act is committed (Clark)

Malice aforethousht may exist when the act is unpremeditated It my mean any one or more of the lb llowing states of mind preceding or coshyexisting with the act or omission by which death is causedi An intentionmiddot to cause the death of or grievous bodily harm to any person whether such person is the IBrson actually killed or not (except when death is inflicteJ in the heat of a sudden passion caused by ade~uate provocashytion) knowledge that the act which causes death will probably cause the death of or grievous bodily harm to any person whether such person is the rarson actually killed or not although such knowledge is accompanied by inshy

- lo - co~~nornrlib

CONFIDENTIAL

(21) difference whether death or grievous bodily harm is caused or not or by a wish that it may not be caused (IDM 1928 par148app 162-164) shy

In every case of apparently deliberate and unjustifiable killing the law Presume~ the existence of the malice necessary to consti shytute murder and devolves upon the accused the ~ of rebutting the presumption In other words where in the fact and circumshystances of the killing as committed no deshyfence appears he accused must show that the act was either no crine at all or a crime less than murder otherwise it will be held to be murder in lawbull (Winthrops Military Law and Precedents - Reprint p673)

bulla deliberate intent to kill must exist at the moment when the act of killing is perpetrated to render the homicide murder SUch intent may be inferred under the rule that everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his actbull (l Whartons Criminal Law 12th Ed sec420p633)

llJlllice atorethought is either bullexpressbull or imshyplied 1 express where the intent - as manishyfes ted by previous enmity threats the absence of any or of sufficient provocation ampc - is to take the life of the particular person kill shyed or since a specific purpose to kill is not essential to constitute murder ~nflict upon him sone excessive bodily injury which may naturally result in death bull bull bull~ (Winthrops Military Law and Precedents - Reprint p673) (Underscoring supplied)

Prior to and simultaneous with the assault on deceased threats to kill him emanated from the group of white soldiers of which the two accused were members Stafford was knocked to the ground and was then kicked and beaten While helpless one of the attackers jumped from the verge of the road and landed with his feet on his prostrate form After he had becone unconshyscious he was either intentionally left in the road or was placed in such location thereon as to become alroost a certain victim of passing vehicles Only the intervention of British civilians prevented the consumnation of such atrocious deed The exact monent and the actual perpetrator of the act of strane-ulation are not definitely shown by the evidence but there is substantial proof that the accused was strangled during the attack upon him in which the two accused were active vicious participants The

- 11 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

evidence without doubt or qualification shows that the accused intended to inflict upon deceased bullsome excessive bodily injury which may naturally result in deathbull The IJX)tive of the attack the purpose of the assault and the nature of the death producing act constitute intrinsic proof of a IIXgtSt substantial nature that Forester and Bryant acted with malice aforeshythought when they caused Staffords death The evidence of the homicide fully supports the findings of murder (CM ETO 255 Cobb CM mO 422 Green CM mO 438 ~ CM ETO 739 Mixwell CM ETO 969 L Davis CM ETO 19()1 Miranda CM ETO 2007 Harris)

7 The charge sheet stiows that Forester is 26 years two months ot age and Bryant is 20 years seven months ot age and that each accused was inducted on 26 January 1943 at Fort McPherson Georgia and that their respective service periods are governed by the Service Extension Act ot 1941bull Neither accused had any prior service

8 The court was legally constituted and bad judsdiction ot the pershysons and the offenses No errors injuriously affecting the substantial rights of the accused were committed during the trial The Board ot Review is of the opinion that the record of trial is legally sufficient to support tbe findings of gull ty and the sentence

9 Confinement of the accused in a penitentiary is authorized by Jl6 42 and sec275 and sec330 of the Federal Criminal Code (18 USCA secs454 and 567) and the designation of the United States Penitentiary Lewisburg Pennsylvania as the place of confinement is authorized (Cir291 WD 10 Nov 1943 secV pars3~ and~)

- 12 shyfl(AI ri n ~ITI A I

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

ID Branch Office TJAG with ETOUSA 2 0 JUN 1944 TO Commandins Officer Western Base Section Comnnmications Zone ElOU3A APO 515 us Army

l In the case of Privates WILLIAM c FORESTER (34686405) and TRACEY BRYANT (34686200) both _of 425th Military Police Escort Guard Company attention is invited to the foregoing holding by the Board of Review that the record of trial is legally sufficient to support the findings of guilty and the sentence which holdins is hereby approved Under the proshyvisions of Article of War SOi you now have authority to order execution of the sentence

2 When copies of the published order are forwarded to this office they should be accompanied by the foregoing holding and this indorsement The file number of the record in this office is ETO 1922 For convenience of reference please place that number in brackets at the end of the orderi (ETO 1922)

~~pound-h_) E c r_r--7

Brigadier General United States Army Assistant Judge Advocate General

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

Branch Office of The Judge Advocate General (25)with the

European Theater of Operations APO 871

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

UNITED STATES ) 29TH INFANrRY DIVISION )

v ) Trial by GCM convened at APO 29 ) US Army 23 February - 19 March

Private JAMamp~ P HOLLIFIELD ) 1944 Sentence Dishonorable disshy(34171736) Company L 175th ) charge total forfeitures and conshyInfantry finement at hard labor for ten years~ United States Penitentiary Lewisshy

) burg Pennsylvania

HOLDING by the BOARD OF REVIEW RITm VAN BENSCHOIEN and SARGrnl Judge Advocates

1 The record of trial in the case of the soldier named above has been exBmined by the Board of Review

2 Accused was tried upon thefollowing charges and specifications

CHARGE I Violation of the 6lst Article of War (Nolle Prosequi)

Specification (Nolle Prosequi)

CHARGE II Violation of the 69th Article of Vfar (Disapproved)

Specification (Disapproved)

ADDITIONAL CHARGIS C~GE I Vio4~io~ of the-q6th Arplusmnic+~c~f nr~ s~3~d~moh mn41Jtili1~1~1P~hLnterl-t0tinoP~AM

Mrs Agnes Mary Brown did at Torquay England on or about 3 January 1944 unlawfully pretend to Mrs Agnes Mary Brown that he was Johnana Thomas and was expecting lllOO ($40000) to be sent him from America that he had to visit Andover to await its arrival and needed money with which to pay his fare and meet his expenses well knowing thatmiddot said pretenses were false and by means thereof did fraudently obtain from the said Mrs Agnes Mary Brown the sum of 1145 ($18000)

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

CALVIN L SHAMBAUGH European Theater Operations

Board of Review Opinions Volume 17

219)

B~anch Office of The Judge Advocate General with the European Theater of Operations

APO 887

BOARD OF REVIEW NO l 26 FEB 1945 Ct ETO 6810 middot

UNITED STATES ) 3RD INFANTRY DIVISION )

v ) Trial by GCM convened at Molsheim France 3 December 1944 Sentence

Private CALVIN L SHAMBAUGH ~ To be shot to death with musketry (35750636) Company H 30th Infantry ~

HOLDING by BOARD OF REVIE11 NO l RITER SHERMAN and STEVENS Judge Advocates

f l The record of trial in the case of the soldier named above

has been examined by the Board of Review and the Board submits this its holding to the Assistant Judge Advocate General in charge of the Branch Office of The Judge Advocate General with the European Theater of Operati~ns middot

2 Accused was ti-1ed upon the following Charge and Specificashytion

CHARGE Violationmiddot of the 5Sth Article of War

Specification In that Private CALVIN LSHAMBAUGH middot 11H11Company 30th Infantry did at or near

LeFerriere Italy on or about 27 January 1944 desert the serviceof the United States by absenting himself without proper leave from his organization with intent to avoid hazardshyous dutr to wit Combat with the enemy and middot did remain absent in desertion until he was

middot apprehended at or near Anzio Italy on or about 12 September 1944 middot

6810-1- middot(middotlrNTAl ~ f

(220)

He pleaded not guilty and all the members of the court present at the time the vote was taken concurring was found guilty of the Charge and Specification No evidence of previous convictions was introduced All the members of the court present at the time the vote was taken concurring he was sentenced to be shot to death with musketry The reviewing authority the Commanding Gen~ral 3rd middotInfantry Division approved the sentence and forwarded the record of trial for action under Article of War 48 The confirming authority the Commanding General European Theater of Operations confirmed the sentence and withheld the order directing the execution thereof pursuant to Article of War 5~

3 Prosecutions evidence was substantially as follows

On 27 January 1944 accused a member ofmiddot the second squad of his platoon was presentYdth his unit Company H 30th Infantry at the Anzio Beachhead near Le Ferriera Italy (RS911) The company was in reserve but enemy shells aimed at nearby American tanks were falling in the company area and there was enemy smallshyarms fire overhead (R789ll)

Staff Sergeant Luther B Estes squad leader of the third squad of accuseds platoon testified that the platoon had orders to move out on the road in preparation to moving to another sector to set up our mortars and to go into actien (R7) The platoon was instructed to form at a point on the road about 100 yards from its then position preparatory to its movement (Rll) Estes did not tell accused the conpany was preparing to return to the lines nor was he aware middotexcept through hearsay that accused knew this (RS) Although no announcement of the reason for leaving was made to the middot company (R9) Everyone in tht company knew it The last time witness saw accused in the area was just before dark (R9) Afterdark about 30 minutes after receiving the movement order the platoon moved out to the road Shells and small-arms fire were still being received at this time FollowingEl check of personnel the squad leader reported the absence of accused to the platoon sergeant (R9ll) The latter thereuponordered a search of the immediate vicinit7 as well as of the area just vacated The search disclosed accuseds

bull absence (R11) and Estes did not see him again until the time of trial (R) Estes and another squad leaderof accuseds platoon testified that they did not give accused (not a memberof the squad of either) pennission to be absent and that if anyone had done so they would have known about it (RS11) Evidently no one gave accused such permission (Rll) After the discovery of his absence the elatoon left the area and thereafter 11set up in another location rn19)

I

-2- 6810

iJmiddot iilff~r-T 1LiJ I ULIi

(221)

It was stipulated by accused def~nse counsel and prosecution that First Lieutenant Louis A Tritico 30th Infantry if present in court and sworn as a witness would testify that lt0n or about 15 November 1944 as investigating officer he took a statement from accused Prior to taking the statement he advised accused of his rights under Article of War 24 and accused indicated he undershystood them Without promises or threats accused voluntarily made a statement under oath to the officer and signed the same after the latter read it to him (Rl2 ProsExA) The stipulation (ProsExA) dated 29 November 1944 bears the signatures of accused defense

middot counsel and the trial judge advocatebull Defense counsel asked accused middot at the trial if he would so stipulate and then stated The accused agrees (Rl2) The proaecutiOA-Ulereupon read the stipulation The statement was then admitted in evidence the defense stating there was no objection and read b1 the prosecution (RlJProsExB) It reads in iertinent part as followa

On or about January 27 1944 I decided I couldnt take any more so I tqok off I got on an LST leaving Anzio and went to Naples In Naples I ate in the Replacement Depot Several times I thought of turning myself in but I was running around with fellows I just never did There were MPs in Naples but I did not want to get sent back up to the lines so I did not turn myself in When I heard the outfit had moved out of Anzio I went up there Stayed around there until I was picked up by the UPs on the 12th of September 1944 I just cant take it I do not want to go back up to the outfit

I cannot reador write bullbullbullbull This statment was read to me by Lt Tritico before I swore to it and signed it 11 bull

4 After a full explanation of his rights to testify make an unsworn statement or remain silent accused elected to remain silent (RlJ-14) No evidence was introduced by the defense

5 Accused is charged with absenting himself without proper leave from his organization with intent to avoid the hazardous duty of combat with the enemy In order to sustain the charge the record must contain substantial comretent evidence of each of the following four elements

(a) that accused absented himself without leave as alleged

(b) that his unit wasunder orders or anticipated 6810orders involving hazardous duty --

(222)

that notice of such orders and of imninent hazardous duty was actually brought home to him and

(d) that at the time he absented himself he entertained the specific intent to avoid hazardoua duty (CM ETO 5555 Slovik and authorities therein cited CM ETO 5565t Fendorak Cll ETO 5958 ~and ~J

a) Accuseds unauthorized absence at the time andmiddot place alleged is establi1hed by the testimony of the two witnessshyes bullquad leaders of his platoon and his own confession which middot shows the termination of the absence at the time and place and in the manner alleged middot middot middot

b) Estes testified that accuaedbull platoon had orders to move outbull in rreparation to another sector where they would set up mortars and go into actionbull The other witnees testified that the platoon members were told the7 were going to moTe into another position This was substantial nidence thampt the unit ns middot under orderbull involTing the hazardous dut7 or combat with the eneJD1 middot (Cl ETO 5555 SlovikJ Cu ETO 5565 Fendorak)

(c) Immediatel1 prior to his absence accuseds Compall7 was located at the Jnsio Beachhead middot It was in a reserve position_ but enemr fSb ells directed at fri endq tanks were taJ 11ng in the area and ampn81111 smail-arm fire waa overhead bull The compampll1 was in such proxim1t7 to the eneiq that its nry Jiesence in the area wu hazardous and the situation ns such tbampt it might evolve at an- moment into active combat with the enemybull It is thua immaterial that the record lacks evidence tha~ accuaed-wa1 apecitical17

middot notified ot the orders requiring movement of hie unit to another middot position where it 11amp1 to bullgo into actionbull bull The situation here ie middot the antithesis of that in cu ElO 5958 lm and p] enbull wherein the Board ot Review held that the record ot trial was leg~ insufticient to support findings of guilt7 ot desertion part7 on the ground that the evidence 11amp1 insufficient to show notitioashytioa to accuaedot orders and ot imminent hazardoue dut7- In that case accuseds unit was in a rest areaand in a rest period awaiting the arrival ot other units ot the division No member ot the unit knew when or preciseJ7 where it U to mon lien were permitted to leave the area to Yisit triends in neighboring unitbull There wasno erldenee ot ampn7 contact with the enemy rresent or imminent The inatant case on the other hand is in the category ot the numeroua llbattle linebull ouH which the Board in the fra and AUm case apeciically distingUiehed__in the ollo~languagez

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

Inmiddotthose cases the units of the accused inshyvolved were actually engaged in canbat or in highly important tactical missions either at or shortly after the conunenc~nt of his unauthorized absence (p9) bull

Accuseds confession howevermiddotindicates that he was aware of imminent combat duty middot

l couldnt take any more so I took oft There were 11Ps in Naples but I did not want to get sent back up to the lines so I did not middot turn myself in When I heard the outfit had middot moved out of Anzio I went up there middot I just cant take it I do not want to go back up to the outfit

Notification to accused was adequately established (cases cited in O ETO 5958 ~and Allen CM ETO 4138 ~CM ETO 4689 Lorek and Heiman CM EIO 5079 Bowers Cl(amp() S~J Killen CM ETO 6lt179w Marchetti) ~lt

(d) Accused was seen by Estes 11 just before dark The platoon which was under or close to enemy fire moved out to the road after dark and it was then discovered that accused was absent The unit moved out without him and was installed in another location Its further activities do not appear in the record but it was obviously pressing forward towards the enerq The portion of his confession quoted above confirms the inferencemiddot that accused so timed his absence as to be reasonably sure of missing combat duty with his unit His failure to surrender to military police was prompted by tear of being sent to the front lines This is indicated by the fact that over seven months after the inception ofhis absence when he heard his unit had moved and believed there was no further danshyger of meeting and rejoining it he returned to Anzio and was appreshyhended At the trial he offered no explanation of his absence His intent at the time of leaving his unit to avoid the hazardous duty of combat nth the eneniy was convincingly established (cases cited in subpar(c) supra ~ ETO 5555 Slovik eH ETO 5565 Fendorak) bull

middotmiddotmiddot middot bull 1

6middot a First Lieutenant R H Lewis as personnel officer 30th Iniant17 eertifled an extract copy of a morning report oi aooua1d 1s

company containing entries showing his absence for the period alleged Lieut~ant Lena aiso signed a letter dated 13 November 1944 to his regimental commander reciting such absence together with other inforshymation shom~on accused 1 s locator card Both the extract copy and the letter ar6 Part of the accompanying papers and neither is a part of the record ot trial First Lieutenant Ruel H ~s JOth Infantry evident~ the same officer was appointed and sat as a member or the court (R3) bull When the prosecution requested the members to_state

6810-5- -

(224)

any facts believed to be a ground of challenge by either side against any member be remained silent The defense did not chaJJenge him (R4) There is no indica~ion that he was not competent er eligible to serve on the court-martial He was not the accuser did not investigate the case and was not calJed as a witness at the trial Hiit only connection with the case was the fact that he had iii the ciurse of his duties seen prima facie evidence of accuseds absence without leave The acts of signing the extract copy and letter however were purely administrative and in the absence of indication of inshyjury to any of accuseds substantial rights any irregularity involved in Lieutenant Lewis sitting as a member of the court may be regarded as harmless (C1i ETJ 2471 1~cDernott CM ETO 4967 middot middot Junior G Jones) l

b The record does not expressly state that accused assentshy

ed to the stipulation as to the testimony of Lieutenant Tritico (ProsExA) concerning the talcing of accuseds statement (Pros ExB) which it will be assumed by the Board of Review amounts to a confession It does however show that defense counsel expressly asked accused if he would stipulate that if the officer were present and sworn he would testify as shown in the stipulation and that immediately thereafter defense counsel stated The accilsed agrees After its admission in evidence the stipulation was read in open court It is signed by accused as well as by the defense counsel and the trial judge advocate

A stipulation need not be accepted by the court and should not be accepted where any doubt exists as to the accuseds understandshying of vhat is involved (MCM 1928 par middot 126pound p136)

It is not essential that the record show accused a nrbal aesent to the stipulation (en ETO 364 Howe) and the ae1ertions ot defense ccunsel in accuseds preSEmCe coupled with thefacts that the subject matter of the stipulation and statement were uncontroverted nnd that accused signed both warranted tho COllrt in concluding that there was no doubt as to the ecc-qeed 11 undel standing of what is involved in the stipulation (MOM 1928 parl26l2 p136 C11 ETO 4564 Woods Jr) bull

r

Defense counsel specifica117 stated thero wae no objection to the admission in evidence of thestat~nt so inade by accused There is no indication that it w~a otherwiso ~tn

6810-6-

~

(225)

voluntarily made The corpus delicti of the offense absence without leave (C 143744 145555 (1921) DigOpJAG 1912-1940 sec416(7a) p267)was established (par5(a) supra) Under date of 15 lfovember 1944 the statement was signed by accused and verified before Lieutenant Tritico (ProsExB) It was read in open court after its admission in evidence

11A stipulation which practically amounts to a confession vrhere the accused had pleaded not guilty and such plea still stands should not ordinarily be accepted by the court In a capital case and in other important cases a stipulation should be closbly scrutinized before acceptance

lt the court may be rore liberal in acceptshyine stipulations as to testimony (Ibid pp 136-137)

The stipulation above referred to concerned testimony as tsgt the taking of accusedsmiddot confession which was a separate document signshyed and verified by him Such stipulation is to be distinguished from one vihich in itself practically amounts to amiddot confession bull But al though it was far from a stipulation of ultimate guilt middotitmiddotmerited close scrutiny by the court before acceptance in this highly serious case Likewise the Board of Review upon appellate review should carefully scrutinize stipulations Upon doing so in this case it finds no indication of any irregularity which couldinjuriously affect any of accused 1 smiddotsubstantial rights It affirlIBtively appears on the contrary that those rights were fully protected

c A psychiatric report dated 17 November 1944 and signed by J Robert Campbell Major Medical Corps Division Psychiatrist is part of the accompanying iapere and reads in part as follows

f middot2bull INFOfilATION FURNISHED BY THE SOIDIER

Claims head injury in 1942 with thirteen weeks hospitalization bullInfected scalp and amnesia for a week

3 MENTAL EXAMINATION

Soldier examined 17 November 1944 at Company bullDbull 3rd Uedical Battalion bull

Literacy may be better than claimed He is able to write his name and words such as bullcat (made up of letters used in his name) spelling 6810

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

the shor~ words without assistance

Mental Age by Kent Test is 10 years Arithshymetical calculations better than MA and ecuca-middot tion expectations justify (eg l00 -_37=bull 63) Geographical chronological and current knowledge as well as narrative ability are also better than formal test and education expectations His nine months AWOL also suggests shrewdness beyond expectations for a mental defective Hence despite relative illiteracy I find intelligence to be within normal limits

There is no evidence of mental disease or defect and specifically no evidence ~r organic damage of brain or intellectual functions of nature attributable to old civiltan head injury

Combat reactions confined to physiological fear responses

-4 CONCLUSIONS

- a At the present time is this soldier able to urderstand the nature of the courts-martial proceedings and to assist his defense counsel in the preparation and trial of his case ~

c At the time of the alleged offence was this soldier suffering from a mental defect disease or derangement Hg

There is no indication that accused was not sane or responsible for his acts both at the time of his offense and at the time of trial middot (CM ETO 5555 Slovik CM ETJ 5565 Fendorak C $TO 5765 Mack and authorities therein cited)

d The record of trial reveals that accused was fully accorded due process of law as proyided by the Articles of War and faile to disclose any action or ruling by the court which preshyjudiced his subst~tial rights (CM ETO 5555 Slovik CM ETO 5565 Fendora1s)

7 The charge sheet shows that accused is 21 years of age and was inducted U March 1943 to serve for the duration of the war plus six months He had no prior service

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

8 The court was legally constituted and had jurisdiction of the person and offense No errors injuriously affecting the

middot substantial rights of accused were committed during the trial The Board of Review is of the opinion that the record of trial

middot is legally sufficient to suport the findings of guilty and the sentence shy

9 The penalty for desertion committed in time of war is death or such other punishment as the court-martial may direct (AW 5S)

ltU ~~ _ __~~---~--~--~--------Judge Advocate

7 ___ r-_ _______Jh_~(_lt_-_ -~-~_- Judge Advocate

(l U -~-----~__L _ 1-__Judge Advocate middot_Wt_44_-tpoundt_middotmiddot-lA--=_

7

6810 -

I~middotmiddotmiddot~ ~imiddotmiddot-

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

War Department Branch Office of The J~e Advocate G~eral with the European Theater of Operations 2 6 FEB 1945 TO Commandshying General European Theater of Operations APO 887 US Army

l In the case of Private CALVIN L SHAMBAUGH (35750636) Company H 30th Infantry attention is invited to the foregoing holding by the Board of Review that the record of trial is leg~ sufficient to support the findings of guilty and the sentence which holding is hereby approved middot Under the provisions of Article of War 5~ you now have authority to order execution ot the senshytence

2 Of the legal sufficiency of the record of trial to support the sentence of death in this case there can be no doubt The accused is 21 years of age He had practic~ no education and is virtually illiterate He was inductedmiddotin llarch 1943 and joined the 3rd Infantry Division on 26 September 1943 He was hospitalized in line of duty- on 2S October 1943 returned to hisformer organizationmiddoton ll Januaeyl944 and the absence for which he was charged commenced on Zl January His present company coiiimander has no knowledge of )lis character or efficiency but he has had no previous convictions or bad time Although accused 1s absence endured over 1even monthamp the evidence in this case fails to show a deliberate design to secure incarceration in order to avoid the perils and hazards of combat as in CJ ETO 5555 Slotlk and CM ETO 5565 Fendorak) and points to cowardice on accuseds part rather than criminality bull

middot 3 bull When copies of the published order are fonrarded middotto this office they should be accompanied by- the foregoing holdingmiddot this indorsement and the record of trial which is d~livered to

you herewith The file number of the middotrecord in this office is CM ETO MlO For convenience of reference please place that number ~cketbull~ l~ end of the order (Cl ETO 6810)

middot11middot middot~~- (~ E C McNEIL ~Brigadier General United States Army (_~~~~s~~~_Judge Advocate General

--~----~--------~~~----Sente nc e confirmed but after reconsideration commuted to dishonorable discharge total forfeitures and confinellent for lUe acKO 65 ETO 4 Karch 1945)

JAMES D KING European Theater Operations Board of

Review Opinions Volume 17

(7)

Branch Otice of The Judge Advocate General with the

European Theater ofOperations APO 00

BOARD OF REVIEVl NO 2 2 4 FEB 1945 middot

CM ETO 6376

UNITED STATES ) 95th INFANTRY DIVISION )

v ) Trial by GCM convened at AFO 95 ) US Army $ January 1945 Sentence

Private JAMES D KING ) Dishonorable discharge total forfeitures (34547$67) Company C ) and confinement at hard labor for life 379th Inf~tey ) Eastern Branch United States Disciplinary

) Barracks Greenhaven New York

HOIDING -by BOARD OF REvmi NO 2 VAN BENSCHOTEN HILL and SLEEPER Judge Advocates

1 The record of trial in the case of the soldier named above has been examined by the Board of Review

2 Accused was tried upon the following charges and specificashytions

CHARGE I Violation of the 75th Article of War

Specification In that Private James D King CompanyC 379th Infantry did at or near SaarlauternshyRodea Gennany on or about 16 December 1944 while before the eneicy by his disobedience endanger the safety of his squad position which it wu his duty to defend in that he refused to stand his tour of guard

CHARGE II Violation of the 96th Article of War

-1- 6376 middotbull ~~ -l

L~11L

(8)

Specification In that having received a lawful order from Sergeant Frank A Volpe Company C 3Z9th Infantry to middotgo on guard the said Sergeant Frank A Volpe being in the execution of his office did at or near Saarlautern-Roden Germany on or about 16 December 1944 fail to obey the same

He pleaded not guilty and two-thirds of the members of the court ~~middotesent when the vote was taken concurrine was found guilty of both charges and specifications Evidence was introduced of four previous convictions by special court-martial one for absence without leave for one day breaking restriction and making a false statement in violation of Articles of War 6169 and 96 two for absence without leave for one day and two days respectively in violation of Article of War 61 and one for failure to obey an order of a superior officer in violation of Article of War 96 Three-fourths of the members of the court present when the vote was taken concurring he was sentenced to be dishonorably discharged the service to forfeit all pay and allowances due or to become due and to be confined at hard labor at such place as the reviewing authority may direct for the term of his natural life The reviewing authority- approved the sentence desigshynated the Eastern Branch United States Disciplinary Barracks Greenshyhaven New York as the place of confinement and forwarded the record of trial for action pursuant to Article of War 5okmiddot

J The prosecutions evidence shows that the second platoon of Company C 379th Infantry on 16 December 1944 was fighting in Saarlautern-Poden Geurormany (R) They had just completed an attack on the enemy and at about one or two oclock in the afternoon had cleared some prisoners out of a building had set up their security and guard and were awaiting further orders The platoon was cut down to 17 men C-t the time They had made up a guard roster and had arranged security (RS) which was continuous day and night No man had to stand a double shift (R9) and had four hours off and two hours on guard There was no break in the guard from the time th~ house was taken (R25) Two heavy machine guns were in the room on the ground floor (RB1419202125) at the front of the house with three men in support one man was in front in the hallway and one man in the rear door of the building also coveri~ the cellar in such a position that thefirst man could see the second (R2l) This was all the security they had (R2l-22) The men who were not on guard were to keep out of sight downstairs in the cellar where they slept (R822) The Germans held the buildin~ across the street variously estimated to be 20 or JO feet distant (RS10) to 50 yards (Rll) and there was enemy firing on the street continuously all night (R7819 22) These were the conditions prevailing at nine oclock in the evening of that day (R7)

-2shy 6376

1 middotTALl lJ I bull bull

(9)

Private First Class Charles H GWathney of the platoon attempted to wake accused at 15 minutes to nine that night for guard duty (Rll1518) but Vihen awakened accused continued to lay there and although he was called three times over a period of ten minutes he did not get up Rll) but just said 110K Ill get up in a minute (Rl2) Sergeant Frank A Volpe of the same platoon had awakened Gwati)ney whose duty it was to get the others on the shift up (R22) and he was standing at the head of the stairs heard the shouting and went downstairs Gwathney was trying to get accused up and Volpe shook him and told him to get up without re~ult Volpe then gave accused a direct order repeated two or three times to go on guard and accused shouted at the top of his voice Are you going mmake me go on ~uard11 (Rl21823) As the enemy was just across the street (R23) and there were openings all over the cellar covered only by blankets (R24) and accused was exceptionally loud (Rl2l3l41823) they were forced to do someshything so Volpe pulled him up from the bed and told him to quiet down Accused kept talking and Volpe with closed fist R24) struck him once across the face when accused tripped and fell (Rl3lo23) He continued to talk and yell and Vdpe (R23) who was verr angry (R21+) struck him in the face again (Rl323) whereupon accused loudly stated 11 By God I am not going on guard now at all (Rl3) The noise awakened Platoon Sergeant Bundy who asked what was going on When told he said to accused 11Just forget what they said Im ordering you to go on guard Bundy repeated the order twice to accused viho replied By God I am not going on guard now at all (RlJ) Bundy then said 110K forget about it well take camiddotre of him later (R2427) Accused had been sleeping with his shoes (Rl6) and his other clothing on (Rl8) Gwathney had gone from the cellar to his post and accused was to have the BAR as security from the rear Gwathney went to the rear to take accuseds place and covered two posts as accuseds failure to go on guard left them short one man there beine no other man to take his place (R25) At the time bf the trial Sergeant Bundy was in the hospital (R14-15)

4 Accused as the only defense witness testified that he was first on guard duty on 16 December from five to euroeven oclock and was then to have four hours off from seven till eleven oclock He pulled off his shoes when he came off duty at seven oclock and went to bed in the cellar The next he remembered Sergeant Volpe lulled his covers of and said Get the hell up and go on guard (R30) He raised up to put his shoes on when Volpe repeated the order twice and was told by accused to Take tt easy When he got his shoes on and stood up Volpe hit him in the eye with his doubled fist He had gotten up voluntarily but fell down when hit and on getting up again Volpe again hit him in the face with the flat of his hand (R31) He denied he ever said he would not go on guard

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

Then Sergeant Bundy came over and told Sergeant Volpe Never mind well take care of him when we get to the rear 1e 1re leaving tonight at twelve Bundy then returned to the phone and Volpe disappeared (RJ2) Accused was not placed under arrest at that time but just sat there He told me not to go on guard He testified that there was only one machine ~ in the front of the house and he had helped set it up R333537) He admitted he was yelling loud enough to be heard in the next room and that he knew the Gennans were near (R33) but they couldnt hear the war he was talking (R34) He denied Gwathney woke him up (R3436) and insisted that the inshycident occurred about a quarter to eleven (R34-37)

Sergeant Volpe recalled as a prosecution witness testified that when he shook him to get him up accused had his shoes on and that it was more than five minutes after givshying accused the order to get up that he struck him (R38)

5 11Any officer or soldier who before the enemy misbehaves himself ~r by any misconduct

disobedience or neglect endangers the safety of any fort post camp guard or other comshymand vhich it is his duty to defend shall suffer death or such other punishmentmiddot as a court-martial may direct (Article of War 75)

11llisbehavior is not confined to acts of soowardice It is a general term and as here used Lin NH72] it renders culpable under the article any conduct by an officer or soldier not conformable to the standard of behavior before the enemy set by the history of our arms middot Urrler this clausa may be charged any act of treason cowardice insubordination or like conduct committed by an officer or soldier in the ~esence of the enemi (MCM 1928 par1412 p156) middot

The essential elements of proof are (a) that accused was serving in the presence of an enemy and (b) acts or omissions of the accused as alleged (MCM 1928 par1412 p156)

This offense (a violation of PR 75) may consist in

11 such acts by any officer or soldier as refusing to do duty or to perform some particushylar service when before the enemy The offence may be committed in a fort or other

6376 -4shy

(11)

mllitary post as well as i1 the open field - as where an officer or soldier fails or neglects properly to defend or guard the post or its approaches when threatened attacked or beseiged by the enemy The act or acts in the doing not doing or allowing of which consists theoffence must be conscious and voluntary on the part of the offender11 (Winthrops Military Law and Precedents 1920 Reprint p623)

The evidence shows and accused admits that his platoon was located just across the street from the enemy by whom they were under fire They were before the enemy (CJi ETO 1~9 Harchetti) There is aconflict between the story of accused and that of the other witnesses in part only Accused denied he ever said he would not go on guard but the testimony of the other witnesses is that he did not get up that he failed to obey the repeated orders given him and that finally he definitely refused to obey the order This was a question of fact which the court alone may decide and whose decision unless palpably in error may not be disturbed upon review (~~ ETO 1191 Acosta CM ETO 1953 Lewis) bull

-

The phrase which it was his duty to defend may be rejected as surplusage as the remaining allegations state fact~ bull sufficient to constitute an offense under the clause of the Article which declares that any soldier who before the enemy misbehaves himself by any misconduct disobedience or neglect is guilty of an offense (CiJ ETO 1249 llarchetti)

That such order as alleged was repeatedly given accused is shown by the evidence and admitted by accused He denies that he refused to obey tqe order but it is clearly shown and admitted by accused that he did not obey the order to go on guard

The Board of Review is of the opinion that the court was warranted in finding accused guilty of violation of the 5th Article of War at the time and place and in the manner alleged

6 The charge sheet shows that accused is 20 years and seven months of age Without prior servi~e he was inducted 10 March 1943

7 The court was legally constituted and had jurisdiction of the person and offenses No errors injuriously affecting the substantial rights of the accused were committed during the trial The Board of Review is of the opinion that the record of trial is legally sufficient to support the findings of guilty and the sentence

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

8 The designation of the Eastern Branch United States Disciplinary Barracks Greenhaven New York as the place of confinement is proper (Kfl 42 Cir210 WD 14 Sept 1943 sec VI as amended)

__-- ~-Qt~--Y~ll- dge Advocate

6376 -6-

ROBERT L PEARSON and CUBIA JONES European

18

BENJAMIN F HOPPER European Theater Operations

Article of War - MUTINY OR SEDITION ndash Digest

MUTHY OR-SEDIT-ION AW 66 -middot middot~middot

424 (Ai7 66 rutiny or Sedition

Cross References 454 ( 9la) 2GU5 ililkins ililliams (Unlnwful meeting middotmiddot -middotmiddot

middot middotmiddotmiddot middot of militorv personnel for insuborshy middot ~ middot~ dincte purp9ses) middot middot

454(35) middot 1920middot Hortonmiddot ( Insubordinto conduct to_ middot middot middot middot middot officor)

447 1052 Geddies (Joinamiddotrrutiny)

Several accuseqmiddotwerecharged jointly withand found guilty of joining in a mutinb~~against their COmtrondiIJg OffiCeuroI and the military OliCe_in violation of AW 66middot (Chnrge I) rioting in violation of A $9 (C1arge II end rongfully possessing and using Gove~nmmt property in violction of A7l 96 (Chnrge III) Motions for severance V~rc deniod HELD LEGALLY SUFFig_I_ENT Each offensemiddot chm~gcd W$S of -such nature as may be committed by two or moxe persons Thereforemiddot a ioint chcrge ~JaS Gl)tirely proper _Tlm record of t~~a~ reveals thct middotc~re nnd c~ution weremiddot exercised both by the lav m0mber and trial judge advocate in-thepresentation of the stctements of c~rtr1in oc- cused The court wss strictlv enjoinod that a statement should be consishyderedbull only-$ evidence agcinst I the accused mak~ng tho satio (IpoundhsectQD v bull Q_Dited Stntes F2 F 2q 500cert donmiddot298 U~ S ~88)middotThe pr_imary ground of the motions viz the nccessity of socuring testimony of certain co- accused becomes idlo in Jaco of the fact that tventy-throe of the thirtyshyfive middotmiddoticcused appoared as witnesses anc1 each temiddotstificd nt lcgth and was subjected ta plenary cross-examinaiion Considering tho- record of tr~nl as ~- whole and the pccuUir naturemiddot of the offenses chnrged the court aid not

proceed arbitrarily or capriciou~lV in oenying the several 1-2llins for

~porotemiddot trials (Olmstepoundpound v bull UnitedStntGs 19 F 2d i42 53 ALR J472 ~ert den 275 US 557 72 L Ed 424) It exercised sound judicial discretion and its decis~ons will nc- be disturbed on app~late review middot (C~ 144367 (1921) Dig Ops JAG 1912~1940 par 395 (49) p234 Annoshyt~tion 131 ALR secVI p926 United States v ~~ supra) middot

On behalf of each and all accusemiddotd a motLon was made tomiddot strike Charge II and III and their respective specifications for the reason-~hat they were gyplications of Charge I and its specifications and therefore multifarious The motion wns deniedbull Tl(ilf~ ~ms pound_l2ltiplication ofmiddot charges Joining inshypound_mutiny ansLcornmitting a middotliot are separate and distince offenses bull A ~iny in militarJ law is a revolt by two or more soldiers with or without armed resistance against tlemiddotauthority of their commanding officers (5middotCJ sec168 p352 footnote 2 Cr 116735 CfI 122535 (1918) Dig Ops JAG 1912-1940 par424 p288) and the offense of joining in a mutiny requires the performance ofan overt act of insubordination by the person accused middot (MCrr 1928 par136g p151) middotcommitting a riot is the joining in a tumshyultous disturbancemiddot of the peace by three- or more persons acting with a middot middot common intent either in executing a lawful private enterprise inmiddota violent and turbulent manner to the ~error of themiddot people ormiddot in executing middot~m unlawshyful enterprise in a violent and turbiJlentmiddotmanner (54 CJ sec l p82c ~er 1928 par147poundpp161162) Proof ofmiddot-the factsconstitut~ng the offense alleged unde~ Charge III and its Specificationmiddot (violation of 96th Article of War) would not in and of themselves prove either the charge of joining in a mutiny or committing a riot The latter offense obviously

-295shy

middotAW 66 MUTINY OR SEDITION

containselements not embraced in thecharge under t~e general article and conviction of the commission of both or either of said offenses would not be inconsistent with a finding of not guiltyunder the 96th Article of-War ~accused may be found middotguilty of all the offenses charged ~middot1ithout being placed in double jeopardy for the same offense (Cr 230222 (1943) 2 Bull JAG 96 March 1943) middot

Where the conduct of accused constitutes the violation of more than one article of war separatecharges may be made without subjecting the pleadshying to tne criticism of riultifariousness or duplicity middotrn factmiddot such practice ismiddot dictatedmiddot by corrnnon irudence In themiddotinstant case the charges were drafted in accordance with this practice and aremiddot therefore free from the asserted defects relied upon by defense counsel In a~y eventmiddot the granting or denying of the motion was a matter wholly within the judicial discretion of the court and in its denial9f th~ motion there was no such arbitrary action as would justify disturbinc its ruling (linthrop 1920 Reprint p251) middot middot

On behalf of each and a~l accmicrosed middotmotionsmiddot were ~ade separately to strike each cf the specifications and charges on the ground that the alleeations contained therein do not specifically allege the _time place middotand specific acts as to each accused so as to sufficie~tly adviseeach accused of the offense c~arged against him It is exceedingly doubtful that the _Eations to strike the specifications were procedlirally proper inasmuch as such motions were founded uport alleged defects in the form of thespecifications rather han defects in substance (Winthr0p 190 Reprint p~52) However even if the motions performed the functions pf amiddot motion to makemore definite andmiddot certain or of a special deriurrer (v1ere middot sueh pleadings known in courtsshyrrartial practice) (31 CJ sec404 pp819820) they were vithout merit

With respect to the specifications of Charges I and I~ themiddot motions are premised on theassumption that it is necessary to allege as to each acshycused his particular conduct 1J11hich cdnstitutes joining in a mutiny (Charge I) and cc~mitting a riot (Charge II) Such a contention entirely ignores the true nature of the offenses

The gravamen of tho offense of joining in a mu~iny is (lJ there was a mutiny at a specific time and place begun cgainst ccnst~tuted nuthori ty ond (~) accused joined in it Both specifications- of Charge I ampro complete _in this regard The ports of the two spccificetions which set forth the means and mcthocls pursued by the accused in joining in themutiny11 ore but descriptive and taken alone would not h2ve constituted a mutiny middot (CE 125432 (1919) Dig Op JAG 1912-1940 sec424 pp288289) Each accused was entitled to be informed as to v1here when and agninst whom there was amiddotmutiny and that he was charged with having joined in it With such information he could prepare his defense or identify the offense as a basis for a plemiddota of former jeopardy Allegations describing generally the conduct of the scveral ilCcusedmiddot renders the chcrge of joining in -a mutiny complete and intelligible but allP-gations particularizing themiddot actions of ench accused nre not necessery middot

-296shy

UTINY OL SEDITION AW 66

The constituent elements of the offe~se of rioting are (1) an unlawful assebly consisting of three or more persons (~)an intent mutual~y to asshysist sg3inst lmvful authority and (2) acts of violence (Mm 1928 pcr 147pound 54 cJ sec3 p830 2 Wharton Criminal Law 12th Ed seclf169) A specification alleging these three elements states facts constituting the offensebull Allegations describing the acts of violGnce committed are essontial averments inasmuch as it is ~from them that terror of the popushylace is inferred but they may be ge-eral allegations (2 Wharton Criminal Lmmiddotr 12th Ed sec1869 p2199) It is unnecosscry to set forth the parshyticularized acts of each rioter and if the same are contained therein they ere descriptive merely (Q_poundmrnonwealth of Missachusetts v Ej~g 235 Mnss 449 middot 126 NE 838 9 ALR 549) The Specification of Chcrgc II meets ~11 of these requirements ampnd fully informed accused as to the exact nature of ~he charge against them

Upon request of the trial judge advocatethe law member instructed the court that each v1ritten and oral ststement of certain accused which hnd been admitted in-evidence-as evidence 21y_aq~iQst the accused making the statement and must not be considered as evidence against any other of the accused This was proper practice in this case The statements themshyselves were devoid of incriminotion of other accused and were simple in form They could not possibly form an improper matrix of hearsay evidenc~ Iri instances whore the statements are simple or names of co-accused either do not appear or are deleted the practicEJ followed in this instance fully protects the rights of accused (CM ETO 895 Davis~t_al 1944)

Copied from III Bull JAG pp143-145 (1944)

Accused officer a chaplain had a sergeant assemble a negromiddot company for him Ho then addressed that compcny urging its members to disregard defy ond rGfruse to obey the orders of their superior officer to be inspected f ()r weapons before going on poss 2nd to work on Su1days nnd to come ond see him in order to get passes to go to church on Sunday should such posses be refused by the commanding officer He vms found guilty of three specificashytions charging the nbove acts in violQtion of AW 66 HELD LEGALLY SUFFIshyCIE~middotT It may reasonably be inferred that accuseds conduct wls with intent to stir up or 11 create collective insubordination airong the troops he was nddressing Hemiddotcommitted anmiddotovert act when he had the sergeant assemble the company formiddothim and middotwhen he addressed them in the manner described All th~ necessary elements of tho offense including specific intent apDcared It ~as immaterial that no actual collective insubordination resuited Bonshytrcry to all principles of morality religion and good order accused chaplain deliberately urged the colored soldiers to disregard the military orders of their superiors Cloaked with some app rent authority and armed with rebellious and riotous ideas ho disreg~rded the trust that his country had imposed in him and ondenvorod to foment clnss h~tred violence and mutiny (CM ETO 2729 r~ccurdy 1944)

-297shy

AW 66 TITINYOR SEDITION

Whenmiddot a number of the enlisted personnel of a compcny refused to comshyply with the orders of t1eir noncomrnissioneCl officers to fell out and go to middot~wrk they vere told by c lieutEnnnt to remiddotpmiddotort to the recreation hollbull middotTheremiddot the middotcommnnding officer invited middotcomplaintsA~tcr virious criticisris were voiced by the enlisted len andmiddota pfafn indfootion thcit they intended to persist in their refusai to 1vork tintiL middot6ertEmiddotin middotdcmands hnd middotbeen met middot the comrnDnding officer ordered them 11 to get oumiddottmiddot of her ~mdmiddot get on tliOse middot trucks and go to work Although they eventually complied theymiddot hadcmiddot n6middot overt act to show ari intention tomiddot imrriediamptely oompl~~ bull(a) Seven priirlary middot accused and 11 secondary (accused ~vhose dishon9raole discharges vJet-ii subshysequently suspended) accused were jointly chlirged middotin whole 6r Jnmiddotmiddotpartmiddot middot with ~illfully disobeying the _lawful command bullOf their superio Officer middot~0 fall out nnd go to work in violation o~ A~1 6 (E) Tlm primnry acmiddotcused middot together with four seccndary accused were charged jointly with beg_nning a riutinv Yli th intent to subvert and override lawful military nuthority by cmiCerted disobedience of the 1av1ful orders of a nonccmrrissloned officer who WSS thmiddot3ri irt the eXecuticn Of hi$ office ehd middotmiddotof thoir COllJDnding offhmiddot cer to fall out and gomiddotto work in violation of AW 66 (c) One primary accused with four secoridary accused vpe cbarged jointly -lth beginni~g pound_mutinv with intent to subvert and override lPwful military authority by concerted disobedience of the lawful ordersmiddot ot q noncommissioneamiddot 6fficcr

middotthen ln the execution of his office llnd their compeny ccmmonder to fall out ond go to work inmiddot violation of AW 66 (d) Four primory accused and three seccndary accused wero charged jointly-with ipoundiningin a mutiny which had beenmiddot begun against middotthE lmmiddotful military outhority of tho ~om- manding officer of their compahy and with intent to subvert and override lawful military authority with ccncerted disobedience of tho lawful comshymand of that corrmanding officer to fall out and go to rmrk in violation of A~ 66 The primary accused were found guilty as charged Six -0f _t~eM were given 18-yearsentences and qiie was given a 15-yeor sentence bull rh~ir dishon9rnble discharges YJere not suspended 7ihilc the sccondcry cccumiddotscd received sentences nfter findinrs of guilt ~heir dishonorable dischargos were suspend_ed ~ Hence only the records of the prim2ry accusecJ arii before the Board of Rovicv for ccnsideration here LEGALLY SUFFICIENT IN middotmiddot PABT LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT IN PARTmiddot

-

(A) ~TOHT TRIAL All accused were jointly chHrged bull7ith a violation of middotAW 64 Two several grcups were separately charged jointly within each

group with beginning a mutiny and a third separate group was charged jointlywithin itself with joining in a mutiny cormonced by others--all

in violation of A~l 66 The allegntions of each AW 66 specification dirshyectly connected the accused named thorejn with the offense chargedmiddot j_n the AW 64 specification The iqentical lccmicros of the offensesand tho same-middot detes were alleged in ~11 of the specifications The commanding officers ordors 11 to fall out and go -to vcrk11 were setmiddot forth as a middotbasic prcmisemiddot of each offense Theromiddot is therefore exhibited on the fnce of the plmiding middot a co~munity of action and ccmmon objectives of e8ch and all of tho accused and this is true lotrithstonding the fc-Gt that each specificE1tion olleges a separate offensebull The reasrmcble c6nclusion is thct the ofshyfenses charged nlthough separately ~1lleged were part and parcel of one transaction and tho fcrm cf tho chorgcs and specifications did not create a bcrrier to a joint triampl The motion for scv~_poundpound vms properly denied

-298shy

MUTINY Ohmiddot SEDITION AW66

l24

1121 ~7ILLBJLJ21SOBFDI~CE Dcfomiddotnse testinCmiddotny middotto tho effect that the ccr-1shyJi~nding officer hrd r1erely 11 adyise9 themiddot rieri t 1 bull go to -ork created at mcst a ccnflictin the evidence Althollgh nll of themiddot accused ~QIttial~y fell out and rent to vmr~ middotyet t1is w~s rmiddott thQ_sibodionce conte1plated and required by the orderi The trucks for the non h2d to ~nli t long past the ncrmol time to entruck fer tlrk The order called for immodictc obcdiclco The soldiers indicated no irm1edi~tc intention of obeying the order and r0-dc no tove to comply (See belovi)

middotfil THE 11 1JTINY--In GEERAL Accused and ether soldiers billeted middotirf huts 3 and 17 refusedmiddot on the mcrning 9f 6 rarch to 11 comply middotJith ordersmiddot ofmiddot the nccusod who ~ere billeted i~ tpe rccreoticn hall had knowledge cfmiddot the inutinous agreement and proceeded to act under it although they had not reached the point of defiance of the ordeuror qf SergeantJecksnn at the ~ime of the arrival in tho hall lf the ccmmanding officer and other officers Knowledge of this recalcitrancy ccmc to tho attetlticn cf Lt Johnsen r1h0 thereupon gave orders that tho company shonld report to the

middotrecreation hall Cnptoin Hinton impliedly approved Lt Johnsons action by his attendance at tho meeting and porticipntion therein These unshydisputed facts give rise to the _nference that the soldiers entered themiddot recreation hall meeting anirrcted by the same spirit of defiance of authorshy

- ity that they had lately exhibited to thair noncommissioned officers With this condi tion confronting him Captain Hinton invited ccmiddotmplaints from his menbullThese c9rnplaints considered separately and in solido unconsciously reveal not only a critical attitude of the men toward their officers but also that the men (including accused) intended to persist intheir prior defiancemiddot of authority end refusal to go to middot7ork until their demonds were granted middotIt was ngainst this background that CaptainmiddotHinton gave his~ to get out of her and get on thesemiddot trucks and go to work bull There was no cvert act by fmy of the soldiers which evidenced their intenti0n to c0mshyply immediately Vlith thismiddot comrrrand Allowing the ~efense the full benefit of its ccntention that nrompt compl~ wasrendertid impossible by the in~ervcntion of Lts takesell PFnninger nnd Vithey n considered end balshyanced analysis of the evidence reveals a rrruch deeper and more incrimin~ting meaning inherent in this situntfo~ t~an such interpretation of the evidence offers Tho over-all evidence supports tho inference that tho intershyvention -r- did not Prevent the soldiers from coriplying rith tho middotorder but 6ppositely that thoy intervened llecaise it wns evident that tho ac-middot cuscd and fellow soldiers did not intend o obey the order ahd thlt the lieutencnts I offorts Jere purposed t9 seiUIe cbodience The ulti11nte porfoi-rnance by the men cfmiddot tho some cCts as reQuired by the 0rdor after hnving been bribed by the promlses of a junior officer camlot retroshyactively cancel their offense n0r sYoliorate its encrmity

The evidence fully justified the court in concluding tlwt some time between the Pcnigo meeting on 25 February io44 h-ld ct the ccnp in und the evoning of 5 March ihsn the cnrpany lrivod at the camp the pnlistod porscnnel of tho Cmp[bull~lf for Ping gdcvnces vrlicp may or nay not h~we possessed middotsubstance and rcri t cnmiddotltgtred ii1tl an undershystnnding or agreement nmcng themselves tc rcfuso t0 porfcrm their usmmiddotl middotend ordinary duties on the morning cf the 6 ~1lt rch unless er until they secured

middot -299shy

t24

AW 66 llJTINY OR SEDITION

fr0n their officers the proriisos of an investigatirn of ccmpony 2ffairs by the Ihspector Goner~ls Dopart~ont r~snbers ofmiddot tho c6np2ny billeted in huts 3 and 17 pursued the SDl10 genernl course 0f c0nduct end renctod identically to the orders c-f their suporicr ncncornrdssioncd Cfficer to fc11 out ond gc to ~-ork bull These 1 ighly incrinineting flcts rhon suploshymented by evidence of unrest and~ dissntifnction in tho ccrpany for several middot1eeks prior tc the events nt the Cttlp and of the conduct of the men at the recreation hnll meeting coupled with tho 9riticol snd subversive comllsnts mampde there by certain of their nunber is substnntial evldqnce froTl vhich the court ~-msNauthorized tc infer the- prier arrangenent and understanding of the soldiers to subvert override or neutrulize supqriar autlwrity until their demands were grnntd 11

(D) BEGIN A f1JTINY--Davis end SMith It could be inferred thot those Men were parties to the subversive agreement Hrmever this factor together with the fnct thnt they possessed the nocosscry specific intent to overshyride authority did not suffice to completp the ca so goinst tlom 11 It ~ilctS nocess2ry in addition to prove that each of them ltHong the first of accused committed some overt net thampt had for its purpose the accomplishshyment of the 11greement An overt altt vms both alleged and proved viz the disobedience of the command of Barnes their superior noncommissioned offishycer In view of the company procedure disobedience of this order was the first act of defiance and opposition which woulp tiffirmativelJr put the mutinous ~grcement into operation and therebybegin the Jllltiny 11 The subshysequent disobedience of the lawful order of the commanding officer was superfluous to the question of their guilt of their AW 66 offense

iE) BEQIN A MUTINY~-Ballard The ncncommissionod officer told Ballctrd to make haste clean up and fall outn 11The men proceeded to perform the order but before they could leave the hall and go to the trucks Captain Hinton and tho other officers entered the halland the so-called meeting ensued Performance of the part of the order to fall out and go to wcrk was therefore rendered irnpossible middot Hence the proscwutiCn 1 s proof of the first alleged overt act of beginning ct rmtiny viz discbeyshying the corunnnding officers subseouent crder to gc to 1crk the mutiny had previcusly begunupon the disobedience of the noncomriissionod officer Those in the recreation hall did not begin a riutiny they joined in a EUtinv 11 11 A mutiny existed Captain Hinton sought to quell it by hismiddot order When Ballerd refused to obey the order it wns not an overt act gthich related back to the prier tine zh0n the mutiny COflr1enced coincident with the events in huts 3 and 17 Rather hj overt act (disobedience of the Hinton order) was connected with the rrutiny thon in progress The evidence would most probably have sustained a finding of Ballards guilt of joining a mutiny but ho is not charged with that offense The offense of beginning of mutiny is a distinct offense from thQt of jcining n ITutiny Proof -Of the latter offense-does not sustain nllogntions ch2rging the former There is n fntal varfonce botwem the proof andmiddot the chorgein the instant-_case

_F) JOIN IN LVTINY--Gavlos Jemes 1 Wrshington~lders 11 In CCnsidering the guilt of tho four named accused of the offense of joining in a mutiny two of tho fundcmental elenents thereof must middotbe taken as established beshyyond all doubt (1) the existence of the rrutinous agreenent between 11 subshystantial number of the enlisted personnel of tho company nnd (2) th8t the soldiers had acted under the ngreerient and ~d produced a ccndition h81eby

EUT INY OR SEDITION AW 66 424

militcry ruthcrity h8d been tenporarily subverted usurped end defied A nutiny existed vhen Copt1in Hintcn middotcppeored befcre his rien 11 Tho evishydence ~ith respect to the ricti0ns and utternnces of (the ~bove=nuned nc~middot cused) at the meeting is highly ccnvincing that each of th2l vamps fully cogniz1mt cf the rigreementmiddot and i10 s keenly crnscious Cmiddotf the fact that temporarily the enlisted personnel hd secured central of the comshymand of the ct-6pany There was therefore substrntinl evidence to support the finding of the court th0t tho four middotoccused acted ~ith fullmiddot knorledge that a mutiny existed and that the authcrity of the officers of the company hampd been tempororily subverted and set nside The burden

wns also upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reason0ble doubt thnt Lthese foU each joined ip 1 the mutiny and to support such fact proof vms required that each of said accused committed one or mere overt ccts evidencing their adherence to and union with the mutineers The overt oct wus alleged 11 to wit the disobedience of the corrrncnding officers Crder to fall out md go to work It vas fully proved

(g) PLACE O[CONFINEE~ Inasmuch as Ballard hos beon f0und net to h~ve beGn gi1ilty of beginning a mutiny in violciticn of A7 66 but is still guiliy cf willful disobedience in violaticn of AV 64 his place cf ccnfineshyrrent must be changed from the US-Pcnitentiery Lewisburg Penn to Eampstern Branch US Disciplinary Birracks Greenheven NY (CM ETO 3142 Gayles et al 1944) middot

After obtaining permissicn from his superior to collect and impound weapons of his company a company co-rmander caused his company to assemble and gave its personnel a cle~r end positive order to deposit their fireshyarms and bayonets on n truck as their nimes ere cBllcd The ten nccused herein yere members of that company ond rere present at the tiroe Rather than ccmplying they protested by dissident mutterings and Thurmurings which finally ripened int0 active and overt disobedience The-y then left the company formation Ignoring a definite command from the officer to reshyform in military order they moved to a distant area Thereafter 2lthough approached by the officer and warned by him es to the ccnseouences of their disobedience they persisted in their refusal to obey--exploining the presence of snipers ond the enemy although they hsd encountered neither Finallythemiddotofficer applied force to obtain the weapons Promiscuous end unccntrclled discharge of the firearms followed resulting in the deQth of a fellow soldier Accused ten soldiers were found guilty of a violation of AW 66 in that they had ~hile acting jointly and in pursuance of a

1common intent caused a mutiny YJhen they concei tedly end willfully refused to obey the lawful order of their superior officer to turn in their rifles --their intent hcving been to usurp subvert and override for the time being lawful military authority Their sentences included 40 years con-middot ~inement each HELD LEGALLY SUFFIC-NT ilLTho_Ev_idence Although acshycused argued that they had been given the alternative of going to the other end of the fieldmiddotin lieu of turning in their weapons the courts detershymin~laquotion igainst them in this regard is binding Vhile this case could hampve been properly handled cs a willful disobedience in violatfrn of AW 64 a vioktion of AW 66 wcs sufficiently proved There was collective insubshy

ordination and specific intent by ctch accused to override end displace

-301

AW 66 MUTINY OR SEDITION

bullbullbull middot ~ ~ bull middotmiddot ( bull bull

in combination with his f~l~orT accusedmiddot~middotmiddotth~middot pbyers 6f command and the authority of thefr commanding officerAlthpugh middotthemiddot recalcitrancy and middotmiddotr middot specific intent m~y have arisen smiddotpontadeously1pori the giving of the order by the officer to th~middot pemiddotrsonnel to aeliver their weaponsmiddot there is substntial evidence bullthat a cori~oi16ati6riiot purposes followed im mediamiddott~lybull Consequently wh~n middotaccus~d ieirt the middotcompany fornatiOn the middotmiddotmiddot existei1~e of aconspiratorial _agreement maylegitimately and reasonably be inferred Tnat such agreement had for it$ purpose the retention ofmiddot their yveapons in derogatibn 9f the officer 1 s 1authority is manifestmiddot by acC1_lFJeds 1 conduct a few minutes later They thereby succeeded in middottempo- rarily setting aside themiddot power and authority of higher command nThe middot necess(ry overt act of beginningairnitiny was shown by their deliberate willful and disobedient departure from the bullcompany formation carrying with them their firearms All of the elements cf the offense of beginshyning a rrutiny therefore existed -- (a) a conspiratorial agreement (b) specific intent to displace and override superior authority and Cc) middotthe

-overt act of beginning a mutiny 11 Neither the neqessity for nor W~clom _2f the order of the company commander is a matter of concern herein (T)he Charge Although it was alleged t_lat accused middothad ~ed~~tiny it was proved that they had begun a rrutinx Notwithstanding the discussion in Winthrops Military Law and Precedents - Reprint pp578-583 which distinguishes between the two terms- 11 (but is qualified by the statement 1 the terms are not necessarily so closely construed) it would seem that the verb ~includes within its meaning the very begin bull 11 The Board

of Review in its appellate function may construe and interpret specificashytions The instant specification is construed as havingcharged ~ccused with beginning amiddotmutinymiddot(2Lsecttaternents bv the ACpound~sectpound When the several statements of each of the ten accused were introduced in evidence the courtmiddot was instructed that 11 any statement in any of the Tritten state- mentsmiddot hich refers to anymiddot of the accused other thampn the man makingmiddotmiddot that particular staterrent is inadmissible and irrelevant and willdeg not be considered by themiddotCourt ~The statement made by each accused is adshymissible only against the particular middotperson who ~de the statement That cautionary instruction was adequate to protect themiddot rights of each accused Since the statements were only admissions arai~ interest they were adshymissible without proof of their voluntary nature and without the establish- middot ment f th~ corpus delicti by independent evidence liLsectentence and Conshyfinementmiddot The punishment formiddot violation of AW 66 is death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct 1 bull The lnble of ~foximum Punishshyments presclibemiddots no maximum limit 9f confinement bull 11 The 40 year sentences herein are legal Conflnement in middota penitentiary ismiddot authorized upon conshyviction of the crime of mutiny in any of its a spects by AW 42 and Act 28 Jun 1940 c439 Title I sec5 54 Stat bull 671 18 USCA sec13 (CM ETO 3203 Gaddis et al 1944)

I

~ i

bull bullmiddot rmiddot

I

-302shy

424

MUTINY OR SEDITION AW 66

Accused was found guilty of ~ting11 a TlUt~~ in violDtion of AW 66 HELD LEGALLY SUFFICIENT Accused appeared at one of the barrncks of on tho night of 12 July 1944 and delivered an inflammatory language horein he sought to stimulate the men to resist the regularly established

middotmilitary authormiddotv by not respondingmiddotto the reveille call the next mornshying That such ~l ~roximately caused the confederated and joint disobedience by t Joldiers on the next morning is an irrefragable infershyence from the evidence no other reQ~onable conclusion is possible The soldiers on the following day not only refused to stand reveille f ormashytion but also persisted in their defiant conduct by disobeyinpound furtler orders of their superior officers Throughout the da~r they deliberately pursued a course of recalcitrancyand revolt that was not only intended to usurp subvert set aside and override military euthority for the tine being but in fact did succeed temporarily in its purpose The conduct of the soldiers constjtute a mutiny 11 Accuseds culpability is found in the fact that he excited the men to this insubordination and temporary over-middot throw of the superior military authority of the company officers Acting singly and alone he could and did commit this offense and the proof of his personal participation in the mutiny which followed was not necessary to convict him of the offense of exciting a mutiny It is highly signifi shycant that he wore T4 stripes wrongfully and without authority when he made his demagogic appeal to tho ignorance passions and rrejudices of his fellow soldiers (ermiddot ETO 3928 Davis 1944)

-303shy

AW 66middot MUTINY OR SEDITION

42~

-3Q4~

Article of War 24 - COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION

PROHIBITED ndash Digest

COMPULSORY SELF- INCRIMINLTION PROHIBITED

381 (l1bull 24) Comnulsory Self-Incrimination Prohibited

Cross Re fore nee s 450(4) 2002 Bellot (Disrobing of accused) 395(36a) 1284 Davis et al (Seating arrant 1ent in

court identifi-ation) 42(5) 1057 Redmond ( arning of Rights)

433(2) 1663 Ison ( 111arning of Rights) 451(2) 2297 Johnson amp Loper (1i tness for Proseshy

cution - t~e 1ccused) 454(37a) middotllC7 Shuttleworth (Accused stands) 395(J5b) (Identity of accused proof in general) 395(10) (Confessions in general) 453(18) Z777 ~oodson (False official ststements

during official inquiry no explanashytion of Ji 24 rights)

451(50) 3362 Shackleford (Make accused stand up in open court)

451(50) 3931Marquez (Preliminary proof warning confession) Accused er-ex beyond scope of prel

450(4) 3859 Watson (Make accused show dog-tags in cpen court)

395(10) 4055 Ackerman (cqused testifies re how his confession was taken)

433(2) l820 3kovan (TJ1 points out accusad) 433( 2) 4565 oods (5th Lm--due process) 395(3) (S~e Admissions in general) 450(4) 5584 I~ncv (No warning of rights) 385 4701 lf~t_to (no intrning of rights) 395( 01) See ccises ce duo proce3s herein 395(10) See g~nermiddot_ly 451(36~) 9128 Ifoucqir~ (Re corfessions)

It is not necessary to consider the question as to -~hether accuseds innnuni ty against being a witness aeuroainst himsulf under the Fifth Lmondment to the Federal Constitution vas itfiinged by these progt3digs inasmuch as it is s0lf-ovident thct he perso_5)_Jy and Y9_1-2__~tari vampived same 11- bull (1 middot~middothsrtons Criminal Evidence lith Ed sec302 p607 footnote 16) (cM ETO 1~60 Poe 1944)

By independent evidence accused had been identified as one of his vie~ tim s assailants The victim himself vms able to maw a pmiddotsi tive identifi cation of him only of-~r acctsc~ rcld vo~rntarily splt~traquo8n in ~hG cou-t room HELD i Lccused persorally anJ voi_1~tari-middoty wai 1middoted hi~ illlIDUi-ty urder the Fifth imondment to the Federal C0~8ti t 0ion wh-m he flJYJke Moreomiddot1er and at the reluest of deLise ~unse 1 acCAf0d exhi bi toe himself before the court in order to de~nstro~e ind(Curccies in the testimory of the victim No irregularity could hcve resuJtei beesuse the procedure was self-invited by the defense (CM ETO 11J13 Lo11r~)ria 144)

-zrshy

COMPULSORY SELF- INCRIMINTION PROHIBITED

Accused was fully cognizant of his rights under the 24th rticle of 1ar not to b0 compelled to incrimiriate himself and knew th t inculshypatory statements made by him might be used against him upon trial The giving of the vJarning would therefore have been an idle formali y There is no requiremtonl of law that a suspect must receive the formal war_ 1Jig

as to his rights when he asserts them 8nd makes known to his interroator that ho hos full knowledge of them In fact proof of a formal warr middot_ng under any circumstances is not a condition precedent to the admission in evidence of a confession liile it may be an expedient and salutary pracshytice it is not a necessity (See also ETO 397 1057) (CM ETO 3oco Holli shyday 1944)

(Also see 1107 ShuttleworthE897 Shaffer and 2368 Lybrand and individual topics)

-2Sshy

Article of War 95 - CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER

AND GENTLEMAN ndash Digest

CONDUCT UNBECOllINGmiddot AN OFFICER AND GENTLEMAN AVl 95 ~~

(01) Abs~nce Without Leave 453(01)

bull

4$J(AW 95) Conduct lnbecoming an Officer and Gentl~man

(01rAbsence Without Leave

AcCused was a liaison officer attached to middota French Division with middothcadquart~rs inmiddot Paris Instructed by his superior to go on a mission to that division and then to return accus0d pro9ceded to Paris in a Goverrimcnt vehicle bull He stoppud at a bar and had drinks He thereshy-fter went on a spree in Paris keeping tho car in tho interim and never did perform his duty ~hen he discovered a secret overlaywith which he had been entrusted to b o still in his possession on tho second

ltlay of his absence he destroyed it in order to prevent it from fall shying into enemy hands Ten days aftor the commencement of his absence

he retui-ned to his own headquarters He was found guilty of the followshy ing charges (~) Absence withou~ leave in violation of AW 61 (~) Drunk

on duty in violation of AW 85 (c) Misappropriation of a Govcrninent motor vehicle valued at over $50700 in violation of AW 94 (d) Absence without leave in violation of AW 95 (~) Disobedience of hts superior officer by failing to perform hi~ duty and deliver a taqtical ovcrl~y in violation of AW 64 middot Md (f) Dctainjng the drivar of his military car during the period of his absence without leave and using hiin to drive for his own personal use and benefit in violation of AW 96 HELD LEGALLY TIJSUFFICIENT ON THE A~10L CHARGE IN VIOLATION OF AW 96 LEGALLY SUFFICIENT ON THE OTHER CHAHCES 1_Spcc~fication Drunkshyenness Motion Defense moved that since the drunkenness in violation of AW 85 was alleged to have occurred on the same day as the absence without leave the exact time thereof be stated in ordGr that it could bedetermined whether accused was alleged to be drunk ~nile on a duty status The motion in effect attacked the drunkenness charge on the ground that it was insufficient bocauso it was indefinite and uncertain 11 It raised matter properly determinable upon a motion to g_uash ~ i- and its determination rested within the judicial discretion of tho court 11 bull The defense could reasonably be expected to assume that to sustain the drunkenness charge the prosecution had to prove the accused to be drun~ at soma time on the day alleged before the time on that date when he abandoned his duties and went absent without leave It is not apparent why the defanse needed to be notified ~non it made

middot the motion of the precise time of the drurgtJ~enness in order to protect accuseds substantial rights (ETO 895 pound~Js et a) (2) Voluntarz Statement The question of whether a staterrcnt made by accused was voluntary was for the trial courtmiddot (ETO 2007 Jarris_lr_J_ fil_Ab~ Without Leave Accused was properly found to be guilty of absence without leave in violation of AW 61 However he should not have been found guilty of tho same absence without leave in violation of

middotAW 95 While his drunkenness etc during the time of his absence might have been sufficient for an AW 95 charge this was not so alleged But as to the absence without leave there is nothing in the allegashytion indicating conduct unbecoming accused in a capacity other than

-569shy

AW 95 CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND GENTLEMAN

453 (01) (01) Absence Without Leave

as an officer No conduct unbecoming him in his capacity as a gentleman is alleged 11 (Winthrop pp ll-2 713 Dig Op JAG sec 453 pp 341 et seq) Although the AW 9-5 absence without leave charge was insufficiently supshyported this does not affect the appropriateness of the sentence SJplusmnl Drunkenness and Wilful Disobedience 11 The question whether accuseds drunkenness on 26 August 1944 prior to the time of his abandonment of his duties on that date was rsufficient sensibly to impair the rational and full exercise of the mental and physical facultiest (MGM 1928 par145 p 160) -i- -- -l- and yet was consistent with his wilfulness in disobeyshying the order of his supErior officer to deliver tho tactical overlay 7~

was pure1Y one of fact for the court (ETO 3937) In view of the subshystantial affirmative evidence (including accuseds own sworn testimony that he deliberat~ly destroyed the overlay and knew what he was doing at all times) 11 presented a fact question for the court (Drunk on duty-shyETO 3577 wilful disobedience~ETO 24693080) (5) The value The court wa~ justified in inferring that the market value of the Government ~ mand reconnaissance car was over $5000bull Other elements of the AW 94 misappropriation and misapplication offense vrere adequately proved (ETO 996 3153) fil Detaining Soldier Accuseds guilt of wrongfully detaining the enlisted man to be his driver for personal use in violashytion of AW 96 was adequately proved (CM ETO 4184 Heil 1944)

-570shy

WILLIAM C FORESTER and TRACEY BRYANT EuropeanTheater Operations Board of Review Opinions Volume6
CALVIN L SHAMBAUGH European Theater OperationsBoard of Review Opinions Volume 17
JAMES D KING European Theater Operations Board of Review Opinions Volume 17
ROBERT L PEARSON and CUBIA JONES European Theater Operations Board of Review Opinions Volume 18
BENJAMIN F HOPPER European Theater Operations Board of Review Opinions Volume 18
Article of War 66 - MUTINY OR SEDITION ndash Digest
Article of War 24 - COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION PROHIBITED ndash Digest
Article of War 95 - CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICERAND GENTLEMAN ndash Digest

Page 2: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONfDENTl~l

(11) BrBllch Office of The JUige JdTocate General

with the European Theater of Operations

APO 871

BOARD OF REVIEf

ETO 1922

UNITED STATES) lEslEfN BASE SECTION SERVICES ) Oll StllPLY IDJROPEAN TEEATER OF

Te ) OPERATICNSe )

PriTate WUJJAM C FORESTER ) Trial by GCM convened at (34686405) and Printe nuDEY ) Whittington Barracks Lichfield BRYANT (34686280) both ot ) Staftordshire England 1718 425th Military Police Escort ) ahrch 1944bull Sentences Each accusedbull GuardCODigtampDYbull ) disho~orable discharge total torshy

) fei tures aDd continell8nt at hard ) labor for life thited States ) Peni tentiery Lewisburg PeDilsylshy) Tania

HOLDJNG by the BOARD OF REVllf RITER Val m-lSCIKgtTEN end SARGENT Judge Advocates

i The record d trial in the case of the soldiers DSImd above has

been examined by the Board ot Reviewgt

2 The accused were tried upcn the tollowing Clerge and Specifications

CHARGls Violation ot the 92nd Article of Were Specifications (Ja ~nded at trial before arraignmnt) i

In that PriTate William c Farester 425th Military Police Escort Guard Company Rugeley Staffordshire EnglandPriTate Tracey (NMI) Bryant 425th Milishytary Police Escort Guard Company Rugeley StaffordshyshireEngland acting jointly and in pursuance of a COlllllOll intent did at Rugeley Staffordshire Eagland on or about 4 March 1944 with melice atoreshythought 1ti lfully dal iberately feloniously lllllawshytully and with premeditation kill one Teclmician Fifth Grade Robert Stafford Conpany D 390th Engineer Regiment (General Service) Rugeley Staffordshyshire England a human being by striking him with their bands kicking him with their feet by strangshyling him and abandoning him

coN FIDENTIAL

(12)

CONFIDENTIAL

(13)

CONFIDENTIAL

(14)

SaTage replieda

CONFIDENTIAL

(15)

CONFIDENTIAL

(16)

CONFIDENTIJL6 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(l)

CONFI DENTl~L (18)

- 8 CC1NFIDIN1 tL

CONFIDENTIAL

(19)

CONFIDENTi9 shy

CONFIDENTIAL (20)

- lo - co~~nornrlib

CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 3: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

coN FIDENTIAL

(12)

CONFIDENTIAL

(13)

CONFIDENTIAL

(14)

SaTage replieda

CONFIDENTIAL

(15)

CONFIDENTIAL

(16)

CONFIDENTIJL6 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(l)

CONFI DENTl~L (18)

- 8 CC1NFIDIN1 tL

CONFIDENTIAL

(19)

CONFIDENTi9 shy

CONFIDENTIAL (20)

- lo - co~~nornrlib

CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 4: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONFIDENTIAL

(13)

CONFIDENTIAL

(14)

SaTage replieda

CONFIDENTIAL

(15)

CONFIDENTIAL

(16)

CONFIDENTIJL6 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(l)

CONFI DENTl~L (18)

- 8 CC1NFIDIN1 tL

CONFIDENTIAL

(19)

CONFIDENTi9 shy

CONFIDENTIAL (20)

- lo - co~~nornrlib

CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 5: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONFIDENTIAL

(14)

SaTage replieda

CONFIDENTIAL

(15)

CONFIDENTIAL

(16)

CONFIDENTIJL6 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(l)

CONFI DENTl~L (18)

- 8 CC1NFIDIN1 tL

CONFIDENTIAL

(19)

CONFIDENTi9 shy

CONFIDENTIAL (20)

- lo - co~~nornrlib

CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 6: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONFIDENTIAL

(15)

CONFIDENTIAL

(16)

CONFIDENTIJL6 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(l)

CONFI DENTl~L (18)

- 8 CC1NFIDIN1 tL

CONFIDENTIAL

(19)

CONFIDENTi9 shy

CONFIDENTIAL (20)

- lo - co~~nornrlib

CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 7: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONFIDENTIAL

(16)

CONFIDENTIJL6 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(l)

CONFI DENTl~L (18)

- 8 CC1NFIDIN1 tL

CONFIDENTIAL

(19)

CONFIDENTi9 shy

CONFIDENTIAL (20)

- lo - co~~nornrlib

CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 8: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONFIDENTIAL

(l)

CONFI DENTl~L (18)

- 8 CC1NFIDIN1 tL

CONFIDENTIAL

(19)

CONFIDENTi9 shy

CONFIDENTIAL (20)

- lo - co~~nornrlib

CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 9: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONFI DENTl~L (18)

- 8 CC1NFIDIN1 tL

CONFIDENTIAL

(19)

CONFIDENTi9 shy

CONFIDENTIAL (20)

- lo - co~~nornrlib

CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 10: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONFIDENTIAL

(19)

CONFIDENTi9 shy

CONFIDENTIAL (20)

- lo - co~~nornrlib

CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 11: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONFIDENTIAL (20)

- lo - co~~nornrlib

CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 12: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 shy

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 13: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONFIDENTIAL

(22)

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 14: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONFIDENTIAL middot

(23)

lst Ind

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 15: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

tfHff lDEiHI ~I

BOARD OF REVIEVI

6MAY1944ETO 1926

) burg Pennsylvania

- 1 shy

COifflDENTIAL

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 16: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 17: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

219)

APO 887

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 18: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(220)

I

-2- 6810

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 19: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(221)

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 20: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(222)

I middot--middot

6810middot -

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 21: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

CONFIDENT~~-

(223)

6810-5- -

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 22: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(224)

r

6810-6-

~

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 23: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(225)

- ( ~ ~ i I ~

bull7~ bull

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 24: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(226)

-4 CONCLUSIONS

-8shy 6810

CO~fDHTln middot

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 25: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(227)

7

6810 -

-9shy

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 26: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(228)

lst Ind

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 27: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 28: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(7)

CM ETO 6376

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 29: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

L~11L

(8)

-2shy 6376

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 30: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(9)

-3-6376 i sfI

bullbull

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 31: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(10)

6376 -4shy

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 32: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(11)

-

6376 -~

bull 1 bullbull 1 i

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 33: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

(12)

6376 -6-

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 34: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

18

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 35: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 36: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 37: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

-295shy

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 38: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

-296shy

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 39: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

-297shy

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 40: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

-

-298shy

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 41: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

l24

middot -299shy

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 42: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

t24

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 43: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

-301

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 44: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

I

~ i

I

-302shy

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 45: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

424

-303shy

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 46: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

42~

-3Q4~

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 47: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 48: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

-zrshy

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 49: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

-2Sshy

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 50: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 51: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

bull

-569shy

-570shy

Page 52: Sample Documents From World War II Courts Martial Cases ETO Review Board Documents

-570shy

Date post:	19-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	paperlessarchives
View:	424 times
Download:	0 times