U.S. v. Cravens, 56 M.J. 370

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Confessions and Admissions › Corroboration

1. appellant admitted on April 1, 1997, to “doing a line”, and a police officer observed that appellant’s demeanor at that time also suggested recent drug use; scientific evidence further indicating drug use which was proximate in time to the charged use is, at the very least, relevant to corroborate his confession

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Probable cause

1. special agent’s state of mind, i.e., did he knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, mislead the military magistrate, was a question of fact for the trial judge, was resolved adversely to the defense, and that finding supported by evidence in the record; the military judge’s factfinding as to state of mind was not shown to be clearly erroneous
2. legally sufficient basis for finding probable cause, as defined in Mil.R.Evid. 315(f)(2), existed where: (1) there was evidence appellant admitted using drugs to a police officer on April 1, 1997; (2) there was evidence that appellant exhibited a demeanor consistent with drug use at that time; and (3) there was evidence presented to the military magistrate that drug metabolites can be detected in hair samples after approximately seven (7) days of ingestion and will remain present as long as the hair remains

Trial Stages: Appeals: Generally

1. an appellate court is not an appropriate place to relitigate a motion to admit expert testimony under Mil.R.Evid. 403

Trial Stages: Appeals: Scope of Review

1. special agent’s state of mind, i.e., did he knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, mislead the military magistrate, was a question of fact for the trial judge, was resolved adversely to the defense, and that finding supported by evidence in the record; the military judge’s factfinding as to state of mind was not shown to be clearly erroneous