U.S. v. Langston, 53 M.J. 335

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Witnesses: Sequestration

1. MRE 615, “Exclusion of witnesses”, did apply to appellant’s providence inquiry in this mixed-pleas case because: (1) appellant’s responses during providence inquiry were judicial admissions, the strongest form of proof in our legal system; (2) a full-fledged trial on the merits of contested offenses would follow the plea inquiry; and (3) the sentencing phase of the trial still had to occur
2. military judge’s erroneous decision not to sequester witnesses during appellant’s providence inquiry was harmless and did not materially prejudice appellant’s substantial rights where: (1) there was no reasonable possibility that one witness’s testimony was altered by what she heard during providence inquiry; (2) there was no dispute as to how certain offenses occurred or any conflict with appellant’s admissions during the providence inquiry; and (3) another witness adhered to her version of the events even after hearing appellant’s contrary statements made during the providence inquiry

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. military judge’s erroneous decision not to sequester witnesses during appellant’s providence inquiry was harmless and did not materially prejudice appellant’s substantial rights where: (1) there was no reasonable possibility that one witness’s testimony was altered by what she heard during providence inquiry; (2) there was no dispute as to how certain offenses occurred or any conflict with appellant’s admissions during the providence inquiry; and (3) another witness adhered to her version of the events even after hearing appellant’s contrary statements made during the providence inquiry

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

1. military judge’s decision whether a witness falls within one of the three exclusion exceptions to MRE 615 is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard
2. military judge’s ruling that MRE 615, “Exclusion of witnesses”, did not apply to providence inquiries was a ruling of law and is reviewed de novo