U.S. v. Kaiser, 58 M.J. 146

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

1. in strict legal terms, the presumption of innocence flows from the fundamental right to a fair trial; the right to a fair trial is a fundamental liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment; the presumption of innocence, although not articulated in the Constitution, is a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice
2. the presumption of innocence is a longstanding feature of both military and civilian law; it is a critical part of our tradition of justice and deeply imbedded in our culture as well as our systems of justice; as reflected in the language of Article 51(c)(1), UCMJ, the presumption of innocence is directly related to the requirement that guilt be established by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; put another way, the presumption of innocence embodies the principle that one accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial, and not on grounds of official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or other circumstances not adduced as proof at trial

Trial Stages: Merits: Pleas, generally

1. in a mixed plea case, in the absence of a specific request made by the accused on the record, members of a court-martial should not be informed of any prior pleas of guilty until after findings on the remaining contested offenses are made
2. a military judge errs by providing a flyer to a panel that contains the specifications to which an accused has pleaded guilty, where there is no specific request made by the accused that such advance notification be given to the members
3. error in the military judge providing advance notification to members of guilty pleas in a mixed plea case directly implicates the presumption of innocence; an accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence throughout his trial; he has a right to have his guilt or innocence of the contested specifications determined by the members solely on the basis of legal and competent evidence introduced at trial and not on other grounds, i.e., his pleas of guilty to other similar specifications
4. where the court-martial panel is handed a flyer indicating that an accused has been charged with numerous specifications of criminal conduct and is then told that he has already pleaded guilty to some of the specifications, and where the panel is not advised at that time of the legal effect of those guilty pleas, but instead hears trial counsel intimate that they might serve as a basis for "inferring" something, these circumstances form a part of the "filter" through which the panel views the evidence presented at trial and poses a heightened risk that the members feel invited, consciously or subconsciously, to draw an impermissible inference from the accused's guilty pleas; the error is not harmless whether it is considered constitutional or non-constitutional in nature

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

1. where error in the admission of evidence does not violate an accused’s constitutional rights, reversal is not required if the Court determines that the error was not prejudicial, i.e. if the finder of fact was not influenced by it or if it had only a slight effect on resolution of the case
2. error of constitutional dimensions requires either automatic reversal or an inquiry into whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error did not contribute to the defendant’s conviction or sentence