U.S. v. Palmer, 55 M.J. 205

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Prior Inconsistent Statements

1. although the usual practice is to confront the witness with an inconsistent statement during cross-examination, it is permissible to delay any mention of the inconsistent statement until other witnesses are called
2. military judge did not abuse his discretion by sustaining objection to alleged inconsistent statement where defense counsel’s proffer was vague, misdirected under the rules of evidence, not linked to the credibility of a prior witness, and did not allude to the inconsistency between the pretrial statement and trial testimony as the basis for admission

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. when a ruling excludes evidence, appellate review of the correctness of the ruling is not preserved unless the substance of the evidence was made known to the military judge by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked

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

1. a military judge’s ruling excluding evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the proponent of the evidence has the burden of showing that it is admissible

Trial Stages: Appeals: Waiver

1. if evidence is excluded at trial because it is inadmissible for the purpose articulated by its proponent, the proponent cannot challenge the ruling on appeal on the ground that the evidence could have been admitted for another purpose