The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals recently reversed a military judge's decision to dismiss charges against Sergeant Keevan T. Myers of the U.S. Marine Corps. The court ruled that the dismissal was improper and granted the government's appeal, allowing the prosecution to proceed. This decision affects Myers, who faced allegations of violating military law, and it underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in military courts.

The case, United States v. Myers, was decided on November 6, 2026, following an appeal filed by the government under Article 62 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards regarding the dismissal of charges and the right to a speedy trial in military courts.

Background

The case began when the government preferred charges against Myers on October 17, 2025, for allegedly using a prohibited substance, as outlined in a Navy administrative message. Subsequently, on January 9, 2026, additional charges were added, alleging that Myers entered an off-limits establishment, violating Marine Corps regulations. The charges were referred to a special court-martial, which arraigned Myers on January 29, 2026, 104 days after the initial charge was filed.

However, the convening authority withdrew the charges on February 24, 2026, to correct deficiencies in the charging documents. After re-referring the charges, Myers was arraigned again on March 6, 2026, but the military judge later dismissed the charges with prejudice, citing a violation of the right to a speedy trial under Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 707. This dismissal led to the government appealing the decision, arguing that the military judge had erred in his ruling.

The Ruling

The court found that the military judge had indeed made an error in dismissing Specification 1 of the Charge. Judge Harris, delivering the opinion of the court, stated, "The military judge erred in concluding that the Government violated R.C.M. 707." The court emphasized that when charges are dismissed properly, it resets the speedy trial clock, and the accused cannot claim a violation of their rights if they did not raise the issue at the appropriate time.

The ruling also highlighted that the military judge had initially determined that the government’s withdrawal of charges was not improper and was motivated by a legitimate need to obtain admissible evidence. The court noted that the military judge's later decision to dismiss the charges with prejudice was inconsistent with his earlier findings. The court ultimately reversed the military judge's ruling and ordered the case to be sent back for further proceedings.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for military justice, particularly regarding the right to a speedy trial. It clarifies that the dismissal of charges must be scrutinized for any improper motives, and if a dismissal is found to be proper, it resets the timeline for a speedy trial. This decision reinforces the need for defendants to raise any claims regarding speedy trial violations promptly, or risk losing those claims in future proceedings.

For Sergeant Myers, this ruling means that the charges against him will proceed, and he will have to face the allegations in court. The case serves as a reminder of the procedural complexities within military law and the importance of ensuring that both the prosecution and defense adhere to established rules.

What's Next

The case is now set to return to the military judge for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. It remains to be seen whether Myers will appeal this decision or if there are any related cases pending that could impact the outcome.