United States v. Stoltz, No. 11-30297 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant moved to dismiss his federal grand jury indictment, charging him with one count of possessing child pornography, on double jeopardy grounds because he had been subject to nonjudicial proceedings (NJP) with the Coast Guard. At issue was whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited civilian criminal prosecution of a servicemember who previously received NJP without being informed of or waiving his statutory right to reject such punishment and demand a court-martial instead. The court concluded that the inquiry for the Double Jeopardy Clause was whether the defendant actually was previously placed in jeopardy, not whether he might have been placed in jeopardy if other procedures had been followed. Therefore, the court held that defendant's prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court also rejected defendant's alternative argument, reversing and remanding for further proceedings.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed the district court’s order dismissing on double jeopardy grounds an indictment charging with possession of child pornography a servicemember who had previously received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for the same offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The panel held that the district court erred in concluding that the civilian criminal prosecution would raise double jeopardy concerns, where the defendant has never previously been criminal charged with possession of child pornography either in civilian court or by court-martial. The panel explained that the inquiry for the Double Jeopardy Clause is whether the defendant actually was previously placed in jeopardy, not whether he might have been placed in jeopardy if other procedures had been followed. The panel also held that assuming without deciding that there was a due process violation arising from the Coast Guard’s imposition of nonjudicial punishment without first obtaining a valid waiver of the defendant’s right to reject nonjudicial punishment in favor of a court-martial, that alleged violation occurred as part of the nonjudicial punishment proceedings and is insufficiently related to this criminal prosecution to warrant dismissal of the indictment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.