U.S. v. Roberts, 59 M.J. 323

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Discovery

1. the right of an accused to obtain favorable evidence is established in Article 46, UCMJ; this statute is implemented in R.C.M. 701 which details the liberal discovery practice in courts-martial; R.C.M. 701 sets forth the rights and corresponding obligations of the parties to a court-martial; of particular importance are the Government’s duties concerning disclosure of information requested by the defense which is material to the preparation of the defense
2. discovery practice under Article 46 and R.C.M. 701 promotes full discovery, eliminates gamesmanship from the discovery process, and is quite liberal; providing broad discovery at an early stage reduces pretrial motions practice and surprise and delay at trial; the military rules pertaining to discovery focus on equal access to evidence to aid the preparation of the defense and enhance the orderly administration of military justice; to this end, the discovery practice is not focused solely upon evidence known to be admissible at trial; the parties to a court-martial should evaluate pretrial discovery and disclosure issues in light of this liberal mandate
3. when a discovery matter is submitted to the military judge to review ex parte, in camera pursuant to R.C.M. 701, the military judge may order that the discovery or inspection be denied, restricted, or deferred, or make such other order as is appropriate
4. information about a government witness’s denial of misconduct to which he subsequently confessed, whether or not it constituted proof of a false official statement, was probative of his truthfulness and could have been used in preparation of the defense to determine whether that witness could be impeached under M.R.E. 608(b); under M.R.E. 608(b), specific instances of the conduct of a witness, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, may in the discretion of the military judge be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness; in the context of defense-requested discovery of this information, the question is not whether the military judge would or would not have permitted the cross-examination under M.R.E. 608(b), but whether the information was material to the defense’s preparation for trial
5. the defense had a right to information about a government witness’s denial of misconduct to which he subsequently confessed because it was relevant to that witness’s credibility and was therefore material to the preparation of the defense for purposes of the government’s obligation to disclose under R.C.M. 701(a)(2)(A); the military judge erred as a matter of law when he denied the defense motion to compel discovery of this information
6. in light of the evidence of the entire record, where the circumstantial evidence of appellant’s guilt was overwhelming and the government witness at issue in the discovery error was far from the linchpin of the government’s case, we are satisfied that the nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

Trial Stages: Merits: Findings

1. it is well accepted that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt

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

1. our review of discovery/disclosure issues utilizes a two-step analysis: first, we determine whether the information or evidence at issue was subject to disclosure or discovery; second, if there was nondisclosure of such information, we test the effect of that nondisclosure on the appellant’s trial
2. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision on a request for discovery for abuse of discretion; a military judge abuses his discretion when his findings of fact are clearly erroneous, when he is incorrect about the applicable law, or when he improperly applies the law
3. the military judge’s determination of the materiality of defense-requested discovery evidence is a question of law that we review de novo
4. an appellate court reviews the materiality of the erroneously withheld information in terms of the impact that information would have had on the results of the trial proceedings
5. this Court has adopted two appellate tests for determining materiality with respect to the erroneous nondisclosure of discoverable evidence; the first test applies to those cases in which the defense either did not make a discovery request or made only a general request for discovery; once the appellant demonstrates wrongful nondisclosure under those circumstances, the appellant will be entitled to relief only by showing that there is a reasonable probability of a different result at trial if the evidence had been disclosed; the second test is unique to our military practice and reflects the broad nature of discovery rights granted the military accused under Article 46; where an appellant demonstrates that the government failed to disclose discoverable evidence in response 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
6. although the military judge conducted an in camera review of the disputed evidence under R.C.M. 701(g)(2), we review that ruling as a matter of law, giving no deference to that ruling under our de novo standard of review; similarly, the appellate standard of review for assessing the impact of improper nondisclosure is not deferential because we are not reviewing any trial level decision; our appellate assessment of impact is no different regardless of whether the discovery issue was ruled on by the military judge under R.C.M. 701(g)(2) or whether it arose from a government decision to withhold certain evidence that was not discovered until after trial