From our private database of 37,100+ case briefs...
United States v. Castillo
United States Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
59 M.J. 600 (2003)
Facts
Castillo (plaintiff) enlisted in the United States military (defendant) in September 1997. Over two years, Castillo reported intermittent sexual harassment. Several officers investigated the claims. A Marine major concluded that the command should have reported Castillo’s allegations to the provost marshal. The command equal opportunity (EO) advisor documented Castillo’s complaints of sexual harassment, including various incidents by six different senior Marines within 23 months. The EO advisor concluded that Castillo was a victim of verbal harassment and sexual assault. In January 2001, Castillo began an unauthorized absence that lasted 366 days. A special court martial convicted Castillo before a military judge of violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which prohibited unauthorized absences. The judge awarded Castillo a bad-conduct discharge, a 51-day confinement, and a reduction to E-1 pay grade. The convening authority (CA) approved the sentence. Castillo appealed, arguing that her sentence was inappropriately severe. In July 2001, the appellate court granted relief and remanded the trial record to the CA for new action consistent with its decision. Castillo appealed again.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dorman, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.