Government “appeals”

The general standard of review for a government certificate for review under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is governed by Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2)), which grants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) jurisdiction to review decisions of the service courts of criminal appeals (CCAs) upon certification by the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the respective service.

Standard of Review for Government-Certified Issues

1. De Novo Review for Legal Issues:

   • CAAF generally applies a de novo standard of review when considering legal issues presented under a certificate for review. This applies to questions of statutory interpretation, constitutional law, and other legal determinations made by the lower courts.
   • See United States v. Wilkins, 71 M.J. 410 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (“Questions of law are reviewed de novo.”).

2. Deference to Factual Findings:

   • When the case involves factual determinations by the service courts of criminal appeals (CCAs), CAAF generally applies a clearly erroneous standard. The court gives deference to the lower courts’ factual findings unless they are unsupported by the record or clearly erroneous.
   • See United States v. Burris, 78 M.J. 280 (C.A.A.F. 2019) (“We will not overturn the factual determinations of the lower court unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record.”).

3. Abuse of Discretion for Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings:

   • When reviewing matters involving procedural decisions, evidentiary rulings, or discretionary rulings by the trial court (such as rulings on expert witnesses, sentencing decisions, or admission of evidence), CAAF applies an abuse of discretion standard.
   • See United States v. Feliciano, 76 M.J. 237 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (holding that evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Limitations on CAAF’s Review Authority

• CAAF’s review is limited to the specific issues certified by the JAG unless the accused also files a petition for review on separate issues under Article 67(a)(3), UCMJ.
• If the CCA’s decision is based on independent grounds not related to the certified issue, CAAF may decline to rule on the issue.
• CAAF does not generally reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment on witness credibility unless there is a legal deficiency.

Precedents from CAAF Regarding Government Certificates of Review

• United States v. Upham, 66 M.J. 83 (C.A.A.F. 2008): CAAF’s authority under a government certificate of review is limited to the specific issues certified by the JAG.
• United States v. Adams, 63 M.J. 223 (C.A.A.F. 2006): The lower court’s ruling will generally be upheld unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
• United States v. Jones, 78 M.J. 37 (C.A.A.F. 2018): When a case presents a mixed question of law and fact, the legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, while the factual findings are reviewed for clear error.

Conclusion

When CAAF reviews a case under a government certificate of review, it generally applies:

• De novo review for pure legal questions.
• Clearly erroneous standard for factual determinations.
• Abuse of discretion standard for procedural and evidentiary matters.

An important issue in such “appeals” is whether the prosecution is asking CAAF to find new facts or reinterpret the facts–its complex, and something we as military defense lawyers are familiar with.

A key appellate case supporting the proposition that the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) does not generally reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment on witness credibility unless there is a legal deficiency is United States v. Wheeler, 76 M.J. 564 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

Rule from Wheeler (2017)

In United States v. Wheeler, CAAF reaffirmed that it does not engage in reweighing evidence or making independent determinations of witness credibility, stating:

“It is the duty of the factfinder, not this Court, to determine the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence presented at trial. We will not disturb such findings unless there is a clear legal error or the findings are unsupported by the record.”
— United States v. Wheeler, 76 M.J. 564, 568 (C.A.A.F. 2017).

Other Supporting Cases

• United States v. Rosario, 76 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2017):

  • Held that CAAF does not reassess credibility determinations unless there is a legal deficiency, noting that the fact-finder’s determinations are given great deference unless unsupported by the record.

• United States v. Beatty, 64 M.J. 456 (C.A.A.F. 2007):

  • Stated that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence but rather assess whether the court below had a basis in law and fact for its conclusions.

• United States v. Satterly, 74 M.J. 544 (C.A.A.F. 2015):

  • Affirmed that CAAF does not second-guess factual findings or witness credibility assessments unless they are “clearly erroneous” or based on incorrect legal standards.

Conclusion

CAAF follows the principle that credibility determinations and factual findings rest with the factfinder (trial court or CCA), and appellate review is limited to assessing whether there was a legal deficiency, such as insufficiency of evidence, misapplication of law, or due process violation. The case of United States v. Wheeler, along with Rosario and Beatty, directly supports this appellate principle.

Standard of Review for a CCA’s Factual Insufficiency Determination

Under Article 66(d), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 866(d)), CCAs are required to conduct a factual sufficiency review by independently weighing the evidence and determining whether the conviction is correct beyond a reasonable doubt. If a CCA finds the evidence factually insufficient and sets aside a conviction, CAAF’s review of that decision is highly deferential.

• United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002):

  • CAAF does not have the authority to review a CCA’s factual sufficiency determination de novo. Instead, it reviews whether the CCA applied the correct legal standard and whether its factual determination is clearly erroneous.
  • “Once the Court of Criminal Appeals determines that the evidence is factually insufficient, we are bound by that determination absent clear error or application of an erroneous legal standard.”

• United States v. Smith, 76 M.J. 524 (C.A.A.F. 2017):

  • Reaffirmed that CAAF does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility when reviewing a CCA’s factual sufficiency determination.
  • “The Courts of Criminal Appeals have unique fact-finding powers under Article 66, UCMJ, which we do not disturb unless their decision is clearly erroneous or based on a misapplication of the law.”

• United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. 2010):

  • Held that CAAF’s review of a CCA’s factual sufficiency determination is limited to ensuring that the CCA applied the correct standard under Article 66, UCMJ, and does not substitute its own judgment for that of the CCA.

Key Points About CAAF’s Standard of Review in Certified Cases Involving Factual Insufficiency

1. Highly Deferential Standard:

   • CAAF does not reassess factual sufficiency but only reviews whether the CCA applied the correct legal standard.

2. Clearly Erroneous Review:

   • CAAF will only reverse a CCA’s finding of factual insufficiency if it is clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record (Washington, Smith).

3. Legal Standard Review:

   • If a CCA misapplies Article 66(d), UCMJ, or fails to properly conduct a factual sufficiency review, CAAF can intervene (Nerad).

Conclusion

If a government certificate for review challenges a CCA’s factual insufficiency determination, CAAF does not reweigh the evidence but only ensures the CCA applied the correct legal standard and that its decision was not clearly erroneous. This principle has been upheld in Washington, Smith, and Nerad.

Would you like a case-specific analysis or further discussion on a particular aspect–contact the military defense lawyers at Cave & Freeburg, LLP, and we’ll see if we can help.