U.S. v. Ellis, 57 M.J. 375

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

1. the voluntariness of a confession is a question of law to be reviewed de novo by examining the totality of all the surrounding circumstances including both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation
2. the totality of circumstances considered in determining the voluntariness of a confession is not a cold and sterile list of isolated facts - the totality of the circumstances include the condition of the accused, his health, age, education, and intelligence; the character of the detention, including the conditions of the questioning and rights warning; and the manner of the interrogation, including the length of the interrogation and the use of force, threats, promises, or deceptions
3. the soundness of appellant’s physical and psychological character at the time of interrogation are examined as part of the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the statements were voluntary
4. while the detectives’ advice to appellant concerning removing appellant’s remaining children from the home may have contributed to his confession, the mere existence of a causal connection does not transform appellant’s otherwise voluntary confession into an involuntary one; this consequence of appellant’s criminal conduct was unpleasant, but the law enforcement officers’ advice was an accurate picture of what would happen in similar cases
5. the factual question whether a confession is reliable is for the members of a court-martial to decide; military judge finds a confession voluntary as a matter of law and admits it, members determine its voluntariness and reliability as a matter of fact

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

1. an adverse inference instruction is an appropriate curative measure for improper destruction of evidence

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Discovery

1. an adverse inference instruction is an appropriate curative measure for improper destruction of evidence

Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Generally

1. an adverse inference instruction is an appropriate curative measure for improper destruction of evidence
2. after the loss of certain bodily tissue evidence, refusal to give an adverse inference instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of appellant’s confession; an accused’s confession goes far in rendering harmless any error in the military judge’s failure to give an adverse inference instruction or stop trial counsel from commenting on the defense’s inability to examine lost evidence

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. after the loss of certain bodily tissue evidence, refusal to give an adverse inference instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of appellant’s confession; an accused’s confession goes far in rendering harmless any error in the military judge’s failure to give an adverse inference instruction or stop trial counsel from commenting on the defense’s inability to examine lost evidence
2. Court concluded there was no reasonable likelihood the members would have found appellant’s confession was involuntary or unreliable, even if the military judge had given the adverse inference instruction and stopped trial counsel from making prohibited comments, where: (1) given the magnitude and variety of the injuries revealed by the autopsy, there was simply no way the members could conclude they were caused by a single hit to the head with a baseball bat three weeks earlier, or by less traumatic, self-inflicted head-banging; (2) on this record, the only thing the members could conclude, even with the requested adverse inference instruction and without trial counsel’s questionable comments, was that the multiple injuries had to be caused by the June 2 and 4 beatings described by appellant in his detailed confession; and (3) the members were properly instructed on their role in determining the voluntariness and reliability of the confession and that they could not give less weight to the defense expert’s testimony simply because he did not examine the brain, and we assume they did not

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

1. the voluntariness of a confession is a question of law to be reviewed de novo by examining the totality of all the surrounding circumstances including both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation