United States v. Quintanilla
United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
60 M.J. 852 (2005)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Sergeant Jesse A. Quintanilla (defendant) shot his commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Thomas A. Heffner, and his executive officer, Lieutenant Colonel Daniel W. Kidd. Kidd was killed, and Heffner was seriously injured. Quintanilla was convicted of several charges, including premeditated murder, and was sentenced to death. The prosecutors at Quintanilla’s court-martial engaged in four separate instances of prosecutorial misconduct. First, after the Article 32 hearing in the matter, assistant prosecutor Major G.P. Glazier engaged in an ex parte conversation with the investigating officer, but there was no evidence that the conversation affected the officer’s findings or recommendations. Second, at a pretrial hearing on a motion to dismiss, the prosecutor, Captain C.E. Feldman, testified as a witness and subsequently argued the motion, commenting on his own testimony. Third, during his sentencing argument, Glazier referred to Quintanilla as a “gangbanging, murdering animal” and a “bad hombre.” Quintanilla’s attorney objected, and the military judge instructed the panel to disregard the inflammatory language. Fourth, after the court-martial concluded, Glazier and Feldman took several items of evidence, giving some of the items to the victims and keeping some of the items for themselves. On appeal, Quintanilla requested that his conviction and sentence be set aside due to prosecutorial misconduct.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Price, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.