United States v. Luke.
ERDMANN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which BAKER, J., joined. RYAN, J., filed a separate concurring opinion. STUCKY, J., filed a separate opinion concurring in part and
dissenting in part. EFFRON, C.J., filed a separate dissenting opinion.
We now review the following three issues: whether newly discovered evidence would probably have produced a substantially more favorable result; whether the military judge erred when he held that the Government was not required to disclose Prosecution Exhibit (PE) 17 to the defense in pretrial discovery; and whether Luke’s due process rights
have been violated by the lengthy post-trial processing of his appeal. We hold that the newly discovered evidence would probably not have produced a substantially more favorable result; if the military judge erred in holding that the Government was not required to provide the defense with PE 17 in pretrial discovery, it was harmless error; and Luke’s post-trial due process rights were not violated. We therefore affirm the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.