U.S. v. Scott, 51 M.J. 326

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Confessions

1. the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applies during sentencing in a criminal case

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Right to Counsel

1. Sixth Amendment right to counsel codified under Article 27, UCMJ, applies to the pretrial, trial, and post-trial stages

Military Justice Personnel: Defense Function: Right to Counsel

1. Sixth Amendment right to counsel codified under Article 27, UCMJ, applies to the pretrial, trial, and post-trial stages

Military Justice Personnel: Defense Function: Detailed Military Counsel

1. In determining whether there is a violation of a servicemember’s right to the effective assistance of counsel, the two-pronged test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); an appellant must first show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and second that there was prejudice flowing from counsel’s deficient performance
2. an appellant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must show that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive appellant of a fair trial, a trail whose result is reliable; but scrutiny of counsel’s performance is highly deferential and that performance is supported by a presumption that counsel provided adequate assistance
3. against the evidence presented and the presumption that defense counsel was aware of the charges against appellant and planned a competent defense accordingly, appellant did not demonstrate that counsel’s representation was objectively unreasonable; similarly, in light of appellant’s significant crime spree, his sentence was far from excessive and appellant thus failed to show prejudice in sentencing

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Confessions and Admissions › Generally

1. the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applies during sentencing in a criminal case
2. the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Article 31, UCMJ, apply during pretrial and trial stages, including sentencing, in a criminal case

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Expert / Scientific Testimony

1. military judge was correct to overrule objections to psychiatric, expert testimony on the basis of hearsay [see United States v. Raya, 45 MJ 251 (1996)] and failure to interview appellant [United States v. Stinson, 34 MJ 233(CMA 1992)]

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

1. an appellant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must show that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive appellant of a fair trial, a trail whose result is reliable; but scrutiny of counsel’s performance is highly deferential and that performance is supported by a presumption that counsel provided adequate assistance

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Discovery

1. disclosure requirements of the Manual for Courts-Martial protect a military defendant’s right against self incrimination, in part, by requiring disclosure to the defense of all statements made by the accused which are relevant to the case and within the control of the armed forces; see MRE 304(d)(1)

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Motions

1. MRE 304(d)(4) required any motion to suppress or objection to statements made by the accused to be submitted prior to the pleas; such motions may be deferred for good cause

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Evidence

1. expert testimony as to recidivism and the potential for rehabilitation of sexual offenders was proper sentencing evidence

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. expert testimony as to recidivism and the potential for rehabilitation of sexual offenders was not prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights where: (1) appellant was convicted of more than 20 offenses committed over a 2-year period of time; (2) appellant’s offenses included two successful escapes from confinement and six rapes; and, (3), in light of the overwhelming evidence, the expert testimony was but a small part of the sentencing evidence considered by the members

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. there was no error, plain or otherwise, where military judge was correct to overrule objections to psychiatric, expert testimony on the basis of hearsay [see United States v. Raya, 45 MJ 251 (1996)] and failure to interview appellant [United States v. Stinson, 34 MJ 233(CMA 1992)], and expert testimony as to recidivism and the potential for rehabilitation of sexual offenders was proper sentencing evidence

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

1. In determining whether there is a violation of a servicemember’s right to the effective assistance of counsel, the two-pronged test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); an appellant must first show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and second that there was prejudice flowing from counsel’s deficient performance
2. an appellant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must show that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive appellant of a fair trial, a trail whose result is reliable; but scrutiny of counsel’s performance is highly deferential and that performance is supported by a presumption that counsel provided adequate assistance

Trial Stages: Appeals: Waiver

1. appellant’s failure to object to expert’s testimony which was based in part on a psychiatric report of an examination done on appellant forfeited any objection, absent plain error; factors apparently considered by the Court in determining that objection was forfeited included: (1) no trial objection to the use of any psychiatric evaluations; (2) no trial objection based on privilege, involuntariness, or any other Fifth or Sixth Amendment grounds; (3) only defense objection at trial was lack of foundation based on fact that expert had not examined appellant and therefore could not render an opinion on his rehabilitative potential; and (4) no valid objection on Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds even existed if the question of incompetence or lack of mental responsibility was raised by the defense and litigated