U.S. v. Mahoney, 58 M.J. 346

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Generally

1. the military, like the Federal and state systems, has hierarchical sources of rights, and chief among those sources is the Constitution of the United States; in rendering our decisions, we look to the highest source of authority, unless a lower source creates rules that are constitutional and provide greater rights for the individual

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Due Process

1. the constitutional guarantee of due process requires that criminal defendants be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense
2. failing to disclose evidence favorable to an accused is a due process violation irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution
3. the Government’s failure to provide to the defense before trial a letter criticizing a key Government witness violated appellant’s constitutional right to due process of law under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Art. 112a -- Wrongful Use, Possession, etc, of Controlled Substances Pre-2019 offenses

1. in a prosecution for wrongful use of illegal drugs under Article 112a, knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance is a required component of wrongful use; if the only evidence of drug use consists of test results identifying the presence of the drug in the accused’s body, the Government must also introduce expert testimony interpreting the tests or some other lawful substitute; because the expert is not required to evaluate the specific urinalysis test conducted on the sample provided by the accused, the Government may select any qualified expert to provide the required testimony

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Discovery

1. the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the Government’s behalf in this case, including police
2. even if trial counsel did not know about a letter from a command SJA criticizing the key Government witness, it would have become known to him by the exercise of due diligence; the letter was written to the Government witness's superior in the legal chain of technical supervision; it had been disseminated widely at the Drug Testing Laboratory and was the subject of formal training for DTL experts; it had been transmitted to various offices in the Air Force legal community; and the Government’s key witness was himself aware of the letter as he wrote a rebuttal to it upon receipt; appropriate Government inquiry of the witness should have led to discovery of the letter
3. the prosecution must disclose to the defense evidence favorable to an accused where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment; favorable evidence under Brady v. Maryland includes impeachment evidence that, if disclosed and used effectively, may make the difference between conviction and acquittal; however, like other forms of exculpatory evidence, impeachment evidence is material to guilt or punishment only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different; under the reasonable probability standard of materiality, the question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial; therefore, a reasonable probability of a different result is shown when the Government’s evidentiary suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial
4. failing to disclose evidence favorable to an accused is a due process violation irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution
5. appellant’s defense was to attack the procedural regularity of the information contained in the litigation packages -- the very information that the key Government witness substantiated through his testimony; thus, any evidence calling into question the witness's credibility would no doubt have been crucial to this defense; cross-examining the witness about a command letter criticizing him may have revealed a motive to testify positively about lab procedures and underlying scientific studies in future courts-martial, serving to damage the witness's credibility, and thereby enhance the defense’s case; in short, the letter’s substantial impeachment value undermines confidence in the trial’s outcome; we therefore hold that the Government’s failure to provide to the defense before trial upon the initial discovery request a letter criticizing a key Government witness violated appellant’s constitutional right to due process of law under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)