U.S. v. Meghdadi, 60 M.J. 438

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Prior Convictions

1. M.R.E. 608(c) [Evidence of bias] permits introduction of evidence, extrinsic or otherwise, tending to establish bias, prejudice, or motive to misrepresent on the part of a witness; M.R.E. 613(b) [Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement of witness] permits the extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements if the witness denies making them, or equivocates

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Prior Inconsistent Statements

1. M.R.E. 608(c) [Evidence of bias] permits introduction of evidence, extrinsic or otherwise, tending to establish bias, prejudice, or motive to misrepresent on the part of a witness; M.R.E. 613(b) [Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement of witness] permits the extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements if the witness denies making them, or equivocates

Trial Stages: Post-Trial Hearings: Authority for

1. if evidence is discovered after trial which would constitute grounds for a new trial under RCM 1210(f), this might be considered a matter which arises after trial and which substantially affects the legal sufficiency of any findings of guilty or the sentence within the meaning of RCM 1102(b)(2); however, even if the drafters of the Manual did not intend such an interpretation of this Rule, we still are persuaded that Article 39(a) of the Code empowers the military judge to convene a post-trial session to consider newly discovered evidence and to take whatever remedial action is appropriate
2. although we have not directly addressed the standard to be applied in examining a military judge’s denial of a request for a post-trial Article 39(a) session, we have held that when an appellant requests the convening authority to order a post-trial Article 39(a) session, it is a matter for the convening authority’s sound discretion whether to grant the request, and that we review a military judge’s ruling on a petition for a new trial for abuse of that discretion
3. in denying a petition for a new trial, a military judge abuses his discretion if the findings of fact upon which he predicates his ruling are not supported by evidence of record; if incorrect legal principles were used by him in deciding this motion; or if his application of the correct legal principles to the facts of a particular case is clearly unreasonable; while this standard is not facially applicable to the military judge’s denial of appellant’s request for an Article 39(a) session, the fact that the request was made in the context of a motion for new trial compels our consideration of this analytical framework in assessing the military judge’s factual and legal conclusions

Trial Stages: Post-Trial Hearings: Findings and Rulings

1. in denying appellant’s motion for a post-trial Article 39(a) session to consider whether a mistrial or new trial should be granted, the military judge misapprehended the purpose of the Article 39(a) session, made factual findings that were not supported by the record, applied an erroneous legal standard, misperceived the evidentiary value of an audio tape, made no record of any weighing of the new evidence against the evidence at trial, either on the merits or in sentencing, and failed adequately to address appellant’s claim that fraud on the court allegedly perpetrated by a government witness had a substantial contributing effect on the sentence adjudged; further, on an issue related entirely to witness credibility, the military judge declined the opportunity personally to hear the testimony of witnesses and, in the process, denied counsel the opportunity to develop that testimony in an adversarial forum; viewing these circumstances in the aggregate, we conclude that the military judge’s reasons and ruling were clearly untenable and that they constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion

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

1. although we have not directly addressed the standard to be applied in examining a military judge’s denial of a request for a post-trial Article 39(a) session, we have held that when an appellant requests the convening authority to order a post-trial Article 39(a) session, it is a matter for the convening authority’s sound discretion whether to grant the request, and that we review a military judge’s ruling on a petition for a new trial for abuse of that discretion
2. in denying a petition for a new trial, a military judge abuses his discretion if the findings of fact upon which he predicates his ruling are not supported by evidence of record; if incorrect legal principles were used by him in deciding this motion; or if his application of the correct legal principles to the facts of a particular case is clearly unreasonable; while this standard is not facially applicable to the military judge’s denial of appellant’s request for an Article 39(a) session, the fact that the request was made in the context of a motion for new trial compels our consideration of this analytical framework in assessing the military judge’s factual and legal conclusions

Trial Stages: Petition for a New Trial: Generally

1. we have long recognized that petitions for a new trial are generally disfavored and that granting a petition for a new trial in the military rests within the sound discretion of the authority considering that petition; relief is granted only if a manifest injustice would result absent a new trial based on proffered newly discovered evidence
2. although we have not directly addressed the standard to be applied in examining a military judge’s denial of a request for a post-trial Article 39(a) session, we have held that when an appellant requests the convening authority to order a post-trial Article 39(a) session, it is a matter for the convening authority’s sound discretion whether to grant the request, and that we review a military judge’s ruling on a petition for a new trial for abuse of that discretion
3. in denying a petition for a new trial, a military judge abuses his discretion if the findings of fact upon which he predicates his ruling are not supported by evidence of record; if incorrect legal principles were used by him in deciding this motion; or if his application of the correct legal principles to the facts of a particular case is clearly unreasonable; while this standard is not facially applicable to the military judge’s denial of appellant’s request for an Article 39(a) session, the fact that the request was made in the context of a motion for new trial compels our consideration of this analytical framework in assessing the military judge’s factual and legal conclusions
4. in denying appellant’s motion for a post-trial Article 39(a) session to consider whether a mistrial or new trial should be granted, the military judge misapprehended the purpose of the Article 39(a) session, made factual findings that were not supported by the record, applied an erroneous legal standard, misperceived the evidentiary value of an audiotape, made no record of any weighing of the new evidence against the evidence at trial, either on the merits or in sentencing, and failed adequately to address appellant’s claim that fraud on the court allegedly perpetrated by a government witness had a substantial contributing effect on the sentence adjudged; further, on an issue related entirely to witness credibility, the military judge declined the opportunity personally to hear the testimony of witnesses and, in the process, denied counsel the opportunity to develop that testimony in an adversarial forum; viewing these circumstances in the aggregate, we conclude that the military judge’s reasons and ruling were clearly untenable and that they constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion

Trial Stages: Petition for a New Trial: Newly Discovered Evidence

1. if evidence is discovered after trial which would constitute grounds for a new trial under RCM 1210(f), this might be considered a matter which arises after trial and which substantially affects the legal sufficiency of any findings of guilty or the sentence within the meaning of RCM 1102(b)(2); however, even if the drafters of the Manual did not intend such an interpretation of this Rule, we still are persuaded that Article 39(a) of the Code empowers the military judge to convene a post-trial session to consider newly discovered evidence and to take whatever remedial action is appropriate