U.S. v. Tyndale, 56 M.J. 209

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Balancing

1. a military judge enjoys wide discretion in balancing under Mil.R.Evid. 403, and where the military judge properly weighs the evidence under this rule and articulates the reasons for admitting the evidence, the military judge will be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Other Acts

1. evidence of prior drug use is not inadmissible per se at a court-martial; Mil.R.Evid 404(b) permits evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove facts other than a person’s character, such as intent, knowledge, absence of mistake or accident, motive, opportunity, or knowledge
2. the test for admissibility of other acts evidence under Mil.R.Evid. 404(b) is whether the evidence is offered for some purpose other than to demonstrate the accused’s predisposition to crime; the rule is one of inclusion
3. evidence offered under Mil.R.Evid. 404(b) must meet three criteria for admissibility: (1) the evidence must reasonably support a finding by the court members that appellant committed the prior crimes, wrongs, or acts; (2) the evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable; and (3) the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Polygraph

1. although appellant’s case was tried while United States v. Scheffer, 44 MJ 442 (1996), was the state of the law with respect to admissibility of polygraph evidence in military trials, the court determined to apply the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998), retroactively and review the trial judge’s admission of a government polygraph as rebuttal to defense polygraph evidence for plain error
2. appellant failed to show that erroneous admission of government polygraph evidence designed to rebut defense polygraph evidence materially prejudiced a substantial right because: (1) other than the fact that he was convicted, appellant points to nothing that would support a blanket assertion that the members reached their findings of guilt solely by rejecting appellant’s polygraph experts and accepting the government’s; (2) precedent does not support the general proposition that an accused be allowed to put his credibility in issue without challenge from the prosecution; and (3) appellant’s own erroneously admitted polygraphs likely negated any potential prejudicial error stemming from the government’s polygraph

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Relevance

1. the doctrine of chances is a viable theory of logical relevance, and it posits that it is unlikely a defendant would be repeatedly, innocently involved in similar, suspicious circumstances
2. to avail oneself of the doctrine of chances, the proponent of the evidence must show that the "other acts" are sufficiently similar; while the factual bases at issue between the charged and uncharged acts need not mirror one another, there must be more than the crudest sort of similarities between the two
3. the doctrine of chances is limited to those circumstances where actions are sufficiently similar to demonstratively contribute to the truth finding process; its use should not be frequent, except in rare factual settings

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Presumptions, Inferences

1. court members are presumed to follow the military judge’s instructions

Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Generally

1. court members are presumed to follow the military judge’s instructions

Trial Stages: Appeals: Generally

1. although appellant’s case was tried while United States v. Scheffer, 44 MJ 442 (1996), was the state of the law with respect to admissibility of polygraph evidence in military trials, the court determined to apply the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998), retroactively and review the trial judge’s admission of a government polygraph as rebuttal to defense polygraph evidence for plain error

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. under a plain error analysis, an appellant has the burden of persuading the court that: (1) there was an error; (2) the error was plain or obvious; and (3) the error materially prejudiced a substantial right
2. appellant failed to show that erroneous admission of government polygraph evidence designed to rebut defense polygraph evidence materially prejudiced a substantial right because: (1) other than the fact that he was convicted, appellant points to nothing that would support a blanket assertion that the members reached their findings of guilt solely by rejecting appellant’s polygraph experts and accepting the government’s; (2) precedent does not support the general proposition that an accused be allowed to put his credibility in issue without challenge from the prosecution; and (3) appellant’s own erroneously admitted polygraphs likely negated any potential prejudicial error stemming from the government’s polygraph

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

1. a military judge enjoys wide discretion in balancing under Mil.R.Evid. 403, and where the military judge properly weighs the evidence under this rule and articulates the reasons for admitting the evidence, the military judge will be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion