U.S. v. Santos, 59 M.J. 317

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Discovery

1. the military justice system provides for broader discovery than required by practice in federal civilian criminal trials; Article 46, UCMJ, mandates that the trial counsel, the defense counsel, and the court-martial shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence in accordance with such regulations as the President may prescribe; and the President has implemented Article 46 in R.C.M. 701
2. R.C.M. 701(a)(2)(A) requires the Government, upon defense request, to allow inspection of any tangible objects, such as papers and documents, that are within the possession, custody, or control of military authorities, and which are material to the preparation of the defense; regardless of whether the defense has made a request, the Government is required to disclose known evidence that reasonably tends to negate or reduce the degree of guilt of the accused or reduce the punishment that the accused may receive if convicted; evidence that could be used at trial to impeach witnesses is subject to discovery under these provisions

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. if the Government fails to disclose discoverable evidence, the error is tested on appeal for prejudice, which is assessed in light of the evidence in the entire record; as a general matter, when an appellant has demonstrated error with respect to nondisclosure, the appellant will be entitled to relief only if there is a reasonable probability that there would have been a different result at trial if the evidence had been disclosed; when an appellant has demonstrated that the Government failed to disclose discoverable evidence with respect to a specific request or as a result of prosecutorial misconduct, the appellant will be entitled to relief unless the Government can show that nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
2. under the standards set forth in United States v. Roberts, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2004) and the cases cited therein, an appellate court may resolve a discovery issue without determining whether there has been a discovery violation if the court concludes that the alleged error would not have been prejudicial
3. the review of discovery violations involves case-specific considerations; in another case, undisclosed documents from an unrelated investigation that cast doubt on the credibility of a witness might have greater value; in the present case, in light of the minimal probative value and utility of the undisclosed documents at issue, and in light of all the evidence presented in the record, we hold that any error in not providing these documents to appellant during discovery was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt