U.S. v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

1. there is a two-pronged analysis for determining whether a loss will fall within the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment: (1) was there a fine that was punishment for some offense; and (2) if there was a fine, was that fine excessive? See United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)
2. historically, loss of retirement pay due to a punitive discharge has not been viewed as punishment for an offense; therefore, it is not considered to be a fine within the meaning of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment and there is no cause to review whether that loss is excessive within the meaning of the Excessive Fines Clause

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 107 - False Official Statements Pre-2019 offenses

1. viewing evidence as a whole, Court finds evidence of larceny and false official statements legally sufficient where the evidence showed that appellant stole a modem and then engaged in an elaborate cover-up after the modem was discovered to be missing

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 121 - Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation Pre-2019 offenses

1. viewing evidence as a whole, Court finds evidence of larceny and false official statements legally sufficient where the evidence showed that appellant stole a modem and then engaged in an elaborate cover-up after the modem was discovered to be missing

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Character

1. while good military character may be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt, there is nothing which requires a Court of Criminal Appeals to make a finding that such evidence is not cogent or irresistible in reviewing a case under Article 66

Trial Stages: Appeals: Generally

1. there is no requirement in law that appellate courts in general or a Court of Criminal Appeals in particular must articulate its reasoning on every issue raised by counsel

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. while good military character may be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt, there is nothing which requires a Court of Criminal Appeals to make a finding that such evidence is not cogent or irresistible in reviewing a case under Article 66
2. information from the Article 32 investigation, not otherwise admitted into evidence during the trial itself, is matter from outside the record and may not be considered in evaluating guilt under Article 66

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Factual sufficiency

1. the test for factual sufficiency is whether, after weighing the evidence in the record of trial and making allowances for not having personally observed the witnesses, the court is convinced of the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

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

1. the test for legal sufficiency requires courts to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
2. the test for factual sufficiency is whether, after weighing the evidence in the record of trial and making allowances for not having personally observed the witnesses, the court is convinced of the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt