The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ruled on August 19, 2026, to uphold a military judge's decision to abate proceedings against Electrician’s Mate Third Class Brandon K. Rice. This ruling affects the prosecution of Rice, who faces multiple charges, including attempted wrongful sale of military property and larceny. The decision highlights the importance of protecting defendants' rights within military justice.
The case originated from a series of thefts aboard the USS Wasp, where Rice was identified as a suspect. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) sought to question him, and discussions about his potential cooperation with the government led to a proffer session. However, the recording of this session was accidentally deleted, prompting Rice to argue that his rights under Kastigar v. United States had been violated. This case established that defendants cannot have their statements used against them if they were made under the expectation of immunity.
The military judge, Jason A. Pfeil, initially denied Rice's motion to dismiss charges but granted his request to abate the proceedings until the missing recording could be recovered. The government appealed this decision, arguing that the military judge had abused his discretion.
Background
The parties involved in this case are the United States, represented by military prosecutors, and Brandon K. Rice, the accused sailor. Rice is charged with multiple offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including conspiracy to commit larceny and obstructing justice. The case reached the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals after the military judge granted Rice's motion to abate the proceedings due to the lost recording of his proffer session.
The proffer session was intended to allow Rice to provide information to the government regarding the thefts while ensuring that any statements he made could not be used against him in court. However, the deletion of the recording raised concerns about whether the government could prove that any evidence it planned to use against Rice was not derived from his statements during the proffer session.
The Ruling
The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the military judge did not abuse his discretion in abating the proceedings. The court found that the lost recording was essential for determining whether any evidence against Rice was derived from his statements made during the proffer session. Chief Judge Korn, along with Judges Harrell and Stampfli, emphasized that the military judge's decision was based on a careful consideration of the facts and legal principles involved.
The court stated, "The Government eliminated from the contract [Appellee’s] specific waiver of the ability to challenge the use of the derivative evidence against [Appellee]." This indicated that the government had acknowledged Rice's rights under Kastigar and that it could not use evidence derived from his statements without proving it was untainted.
The judges concluded that the military judge correctly interpreted the agreement between the parties regarding the protections afforded to Rice. They noted that the government had the burden of proving that its evidence was derived from legitimate sources independent of Rice’s statements.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for military justice, particularly regarding defendants' rights during proffer sessions. It reinforces the necessity for the government to maintain accurate records and uphold agreements made during negotiations with accused individuals. The decision also highlights the importance of protecting the rights of service members, ensuring they are not unfairly prosecuted based on statements made under the expectation of immunity.
Going forward, this case may influence how military prosecutors handle proffer sessions and the documentation required to ensure that defendants' rights are protected. The ruling emphasizes that any failure to maintain evidence, such as recordings, can lead to serious consequences for the prosecution.
What's Next
The case is now returned to the Judge Advocate General for remand to the military judge for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. It is unclear whether the government will seek to appeal this ruling further or if there are related cases pending.