Reid v covert case brief

CASE ANALYSIS: REID VS. COVERT 1

Case Analysis: Reid vs. Covert

University of Maryland University College

HMLS 406 6380

Professor Andrews

CASE ANALYSIS: REID VS. COVERT 2

Case Analysis: Reid vs. Covert

Issue

(General) When civilian citizens are overseas, will they be protected under the United States

constitutional right to a civilian trial?

(Specific) Was the military out of their jurisdiction to try and convict Clarice Covert as a

member of the Armed Forces?

(Sub-issue) Can a civilian dependent of an Armed Forces member be tried by court-martial

without a grand jury or jury trial?

(Sub-issue) Is Clarice Covert entitled to a writ of habeas corpus?

(Sub-issue) Did the military (Air Force) violate Clarice Coverts constitutional rights under the

Fifth and Sixth Amendment?

(Sub-issue) Should military dependents be held to the same standards and laws as military

personnel under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)?

Rule

The Supreme Court concluded, “ There have been no treaties made with foreign nations that

forces power over Congress, or any other Government entity, that is free from restrictions or

limitations of the Constitution”("Law School Case Briefs," 2012, para. 3). However, if there is a

conflicting treaty with an ensuing Congressional Act, the Congressional Act supersedes the

treaty; except if it’s in violation of the United States Constitution. Therefore, Covert’s petition

for the writ of habeas corpus must be granted, as the United States military does not have the

authority to convict Covert based upon the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

CASE ANALYSIS: REID VS. COVERT 3

Analysis

(Facts and procedural history) Clarice Covert, a civilian dependent of an armed service member

of the United States Air Force, was convicted of murdering her husband, while stationed on a

base overseas. Although she was a civilian dependent of an armed service member, Covert was

court-martialed, tried and sentenced to life in prison under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Covert was denied constitutional rights under the law, which entitles United States civilians, a

fair trial in front of a jury or grand jury. A writ of habeas corpus was filed in Federal District

Court on behalf of Covert; accusing military authorities of violating her Constitutional rights

under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment (Lognion, 2015, para. 1). The Fifth Amendment

guarantees the right to a grand jury trial, and the Sixth Amendment grants the right to a speedy

trial, legal representation, unbiased jury and knowledge of the current charges (Cornell Law

School, n.d., pg. 6). The district court approved the reevaluation of Covert’s case, base upon the

fact, that all civilians should be granted a fair civilian trial.

Although the federal district court granted Covert’s writ to habeas corpus, the district

government appealed the decision; taking the case to the Supreme Court. The case was limited

to Article 2(11), in which civilians serving in the field with armed forces members are subject to

court-martial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court initially upheld the military tribunals decision

concluding, “the military trail against Clarice Covert was constitutional, and the Constitutional

right to a trial by jury did not apply to American citizens tried on foreign lands”("Reid v.

Covert," n.d., p. 2). Consequently, Covert was transferred to a jail in the District of Columbia to

await retrial by court-martial following her appeal. The court case was postponed based on

CASE ANALYSIS: REID VS. COVERT 4

awaiting the completion of a merits hearing (350 U.S. 985). Following the merits hearing, the

courts concluded, the United States judicial system has jurisdiction.

During the proceedings, Covert argued the merits of Article 2(11) under the Military Code of

Uniform Justice, should be limited to location, resulting in the expiration of jurisdiction upon

arrival into the United States. Thereby terminating all rights of jurisdictional status, as Article

2(11) no longer applies, since she is in the custody of the United States and not the armed forces.

Conversely, this was a valid argument in the eyes of the Supreme Court. Insofar the court

determined, jurisdiction of military tribunals are very limited and determined to be applicable

only during times of active war. This does not apply to spouses, children or other dependents of

armed service members, regardless of their geographic location. The right to a trial by grand

jury should be afforded to all civilians belonging to the United States, despite the treaties set

forth with foreign countries. The decision was overturned citing that “civilian trials by court-

martial are unconstitutional” (Lognion, 2015, para. 6).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the United States Supreme Court overturned the Military’s Court decision of

maintaining jurisdiction over Clarice Covert. Although she was a civilian dependent of an

armed service member, Covert was court-martialed, tried and sentenced to life in prison under

the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Denying Covert’s right to a trial by jury or grand jury was

a clear violation of her Fifth and Sixth Amendment right under the Constitution. Moreover,

Covert was extradited to the United States and granted a writ of habeas corpus as well as a merits

trial, where she persuaded the Supreme Court to rule in her favor. This court case has taught us,

CASE ANALYSIS: REID VS. COVERT 5

that regardless of your location or dependent status, civilians are protected by the United States

Constitution and should be prosecuted in accordance to U. S. laws, instead of being court-

martialed.

CASE ANALYSIS: REID VS. COVERT 6

References

Cornell School of Law []. (n.d.). Legal Information Institute: U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights.

Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment

Cornell School of Law []. (n.d.). Legal Information Institute: Reid v. Covert. Retrieved from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/354/1

Lognion, M. (2015). Reid v. Covert. Retrieved September 3, 2015, from

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_701_2

Reid v. Covert Case Brief. (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2012/01/reid-v-covert-case-brief.html