U.S. v. Williams, 50 M.J. 397

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Generally

1. the military judge may be presumed to know about law and precedent, and be presumed to have afforded an accused his rights under them

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Burdens, Standards, Etc. › Presumptions

1. the military judge may be presumed to know about law and precedent, and be presumed to have afforded an accused his rights under them

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Evidence

1. it is improper sentencing evidence for a commanding officer to recommend a punitive discharge to a court-martial sentencing authority or to use euphemisms to that same effect; commander’s testimony that she had past intention of administratively discharging appellant could be rationally construed as an opinion that appellant should be punitively discharged and was, therefore, improper sentencing evidence

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. plain error did not relieve appellant of the consequences of failing to object to impermissible sentencing evidence to the effect that appellant should be punitively discharged where there was no prejudice because: (1) trial was before military judge alone who may be presumed to know the law; (2) other properly admitted evidence amply demonstrated appellant’s abysmal disciplinary record; and (3) failure to object to commander’s testimony that she had past intention of administratively discharging appellant was consistent with sentencing strategy of accepting minimum amount of confinement and forfeitures in effort to avoid punitive discharge

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. the military judge may be presumed to know about law and precedent, and be presumed to have afforded an accused his rights under them