Court-Martial Trial Practice

Probably not successfully based on AV2 v. McDonough, No. 22-369, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72609 (D.D.C. April 20, 2022) and E.V. v. Robinson, 906 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2018) certiorari den. 140 S.Ct. 501, 205 L. Ed. 2d 316 (2019).

In each of these cases, a military judge had granted discovery of mental health information that the alleged victims claimed was protected by Mil. R. Evid. 513, in other words, the military judge was wrong. They had sought relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals and from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces without success.

The basis for seeking a writ was essentially that

Last year the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure Judicial Conference of the United States requested public comment on proposed changes to several rules of evidence. On page 299 of the request, you will find the proposed evidence rules. We are most interested in Rule 702, which deals with experts and expert testimony.

The Daubert case was an effort to make the trial judge the gatekeeper of expert testimony to make sure it was reliable and relevant. However, the military appellate courts adopted Daubert and added their factors to consider over time. From this, we, or your military defense lawyer, will make Houser motions from time to time. United States v. Houser, 36 M.J. 392 (C.A.A.F. 1993) sets out six factors a judge should use to determine the admissibility of expert testimony.

• Qualified Expert. Expert witness must qualify as an expert because of some special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. See e.g., United States v. Roach, __ F. 3d ___ (8^th Cir. 2011). Eighth Circuit noted Rule 702 does not rank academic training over demonstrated practical experience. An individual can qualify as an expert where he possesses sufficient knowledge gained from practical experience, even though he may lack academic qualifications in the particular field of expertise.

• Orin Kerr, The Fourth Amendment and Geofence Warrants: A Critical Look at United States v. Chatrie. Lawfare, March 12, 2022.
• Cave, Christensen, Fidell, Fissell, and Maurer, The Division of Authority Between the Special Trial Counsel and Commanders Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Planning Now for the Next Phase of Reform. Lawfare, February 28, 2022.
• Yes, Chevron comes up in military cases (at least 42). See, e.g., United States v. Alkazahg. 81 M.J. 764 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. 2021); United States v. Johnson, 76 M.J. 673 (A. F. Ct. Crim. App. 2017) rev. denied 77 M.J. 17 (C.A.A.F. 2017); Amy Semet, Statutory Interpretation and Chevron Defense in the Appellate Courts: An Empirical Analysis. 12 U.C. IRVINE L. REV. 621 (2022).

In United States v. Ferreira. ARMY MISC 20220034 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2022) The government has filed for and received a stay of proceedings in this case based on the military judge’s decision in United States v. Dial,” that he will instruct the jury that they must have a unanimous vote for guilty to any of the charges.

The government has petitioned for a Writ of Prohibition as they have done in Dial. Here is a link to the government’s petition filed in United States v. Dial, ARMY MISC 20220001 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 4, 2022).

In 1775, the Second Continental Congress adopted the British Articles of War for the Continental army. The Articles did not require unanimous verdicts in courts-martial findings. That a military jury can find a service member guilty with less than unanimous votes remains the law. That law now conflicts with the law in all U.S. jurisdictions since the Supreme Court decided the case of Ramos v. Louisiana in 2020.

Over the last several years, I have noticed quite a few cases on appeal challenging improper arguments made by the prosecutor. Here is a short burst on a recent approach I have taken.

Standard of review

            Prosecutorial error in making an improper argument is a legal question reviewed de novo. If there is no object to the errors, this Court applies a ‘plain error” standard of review. An appellant must show “(1) there is an error, (2) the error is plain or obvious, and (3) the error results in material prejudice to a substantial right of the accused.” United States v. Sewell, 76 M.J. 14, 18 (C.A.A.F. 2017); United States v. Erikson, 65 M.J. 221 (CA.A.F. 2007); United States v. Fletcher, 62 M.J. 175 (C.A.A.F. 2005).

MJBB–Mental Responsibility

Civilian counsel don’t always get paid by the client. Rather, it oftentimes can be the parents or a family member. Technology and other innovations have brought us crowdfunding and organizations set up to help defray legal fees for a court-martial accused.

I recently participated in a Zoom discussion about this topic and its ethical concerns.

Here is a link.