U.S. v. Jackson, 59 M.J. 330

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Discovery

1. discovery in the military justice system, which is broader than in federal civilian criminal proceedings, is designed to eliminate pretrial gamesmanship, reduce the amount of pretrial motions practice, and reduce the potential for surprise and delay at trial
2. under R.C.M. 701(a)(2)(B), the Government must allow the defense, upon request, to inspect any results or reports of scientific tests or experiments, or copies thereof, which are within the possession, custody, or control of military authorities, the existence of which is known or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the trial counsel, and which are material to the preparation of the defense
3. in the absence of a defense request, R.C.M. 701(a)(6) requires the Government to disclose known evidence that reasonably tends to negate or reduce the accused’s degree of guilt or reduce the punishment that the accused may receive if found guilty
4. the discovery rules encompass evidence that could be used at trial to impeach witnesses or other evidence presented by the Government
5. discovery is not limited to matters within the scope of trial counsel’s personal knowledge; the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the Government’s behalf; trial counsel must exercise due diligence in discovering favorable evidence not only in his possession but also in the possession of other military authorities and make them available for inspection; the parameters of the review that must be undertaken outside the prosecutor’s own files will depend in any particular case on the relationship of the other governmental entity to the prosecution and the nature of the defense discovery request
6. the parties bear a continuing duty to disclose responsive evidence or material
7. the undisclosed scientific test report at issue in this case fell well within the temporal span of the defense discovery request; accordingly, the Government’s failure to provide the requested information violated appellant’s right to discovery under R.C.M. 701(a)(2)(B)

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. with respect to prejudice in this case, where the prosecution focused primarily on a urinalysis laboratory result, and where the defense focused primarily on the reliability of the laboratory process, the defense could have used the undisclosed laboratory discrepancy report to demonstrate the existence of quality control problems; as a result, there is a reasonable probability that such evidence could have influenced the members’ judgment about the reliability of the testing process
3. we conclude that the Government’s error in failing to disclose a laboratory discrepancy report deprived the defense of information that could have been considered by the members as critical on a pivotal issue in the case -- the reliability of the laboratory’s report that appellant’s specimen produced a positive result; given the significance of this information in the context of appellant’s trial, the error was prejudicial under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, as well as under the standard of a reasonable probability of a different result