Matthew P. Leipart v. United States

In opening statements for a litigated sexual assault case, defense counsel in a “spot of the moment” decision asked the military judge sitting as the factfinder to be “aware” of Technical Sergeant (TSgt) Matthew P. Leipart’s earlier guilty plea. TSgt Leipart was not consulted on this decision. His prior admissions for other offenses against the same victim during the guilty plea effectively conceded guilt on the remaining litigated offenses by corroborating the victim, who was the sole source of evidence. In effect, TSgt Leipart was forced to testify against himself and concede guilt without his consent. Furthermore, the prosecutor invoked the substance of the plea during closing arguments to rehabilitate the victim’s credibility. There was no objection by defense counsel and no intervention by the military judge. This case presents two constitutional questions: I. Is it unconstitutional for defense counsel to effectively concede guilt without consulting their client, thereby overriding the accused’s expressed objective to contest the charged offenses? II. Was the prosecutor’s “clear” constitutional error in closing argument—leveraging the accused’s guilty plea to prove guilt of the litigated offenses—harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?