U.S. v. Anderson, 55 M.J. 182

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Plea Negotiations

1. the protections of Mil. R. Evid. 410 are not limited to plea-bargaining statements that relate only to the offenses pending before the court-martial at which they are offered
2. under Mil. R. Evid. 420, charges are pending until an appellant receives the quid pro quo for his admission of guilt made to obtain a discharge in lieu of trial: an executed discharge
3. Mil. R. Evid. 410 must be interpreted broadly in order to carry out the policy underlying the rule, which is to encourage the flow of information during the plea-bargaining process
4. even though it was a personnel record, a document purporting to approve an accused’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial on other charges was inadmissible during sentencing under Mil. R. Evid. 410: (1) the document reflected that appellant had bargained for disposition of the earlier charges without trial; (2) the request for discharge was tantamount to a statement because an admission of guilt was an integral part of the discharge process; and (3) because the administrative discharge was not executed and appellant had not received the benefit of his bargain in the earlier case, those earlier charges were still pending

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Evidence

1. RCM 1001(b)(2) permits the prosecution to introduce information from the accused’s personnel records, but it does not provide blanket authority to introduce all information that happens to be maintained in the accused’s personnel records
2. even though it was a personnel record, a document purporting to approve an accused’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial on other charges was inadmissible during sentencing under Mil. R. Evid. 410: (1) the document reflected that appellant had bargained for disposition of the earlier charges without trial; (2) the request for discharge was tantamount to a statement because an admission of guilt was an integral part of the discharge process; and (3) because the administrative discharge was not executed and appellant had not received the benefit of his bargain in the earlier case, those earlier charges were still pending