U.S. v. Sonego, 61 M.J. 1

Military Justice Personnel: Court Members: Challenges for Cause

1. an inelastic predisposition toward a particular punishment is a valid basis for a challenge for cause

Military Justice Personnel: Court Members: Eligibility/Selection

1. voir dire is critical to the fairness of a court-martial; a defendant’s right to a fair trial is undermined if panel members fail to answer material questions honestly during voir dire

Trial Stages: Merits: Trial Procedures › Voir dire

1. voir dire is critical to the fairness of a court-martial; a defendant’s right to a fair trial is undermined if panel members fail to answer material questions honestly during voir dire
2. an inelastic predisposition toward a particular punishment is a valid basis for a challenge for cause
3. a colorable claim of juror dishonesty was made in this case where an officer of the court declared under penalty of perjury that a panel member provided a contradictory voir dire response on a critical issue less than one month after appellant’s trial

Trial Stages: Merits: New Trial

1. to obtain a new trial due to an incorrect voir dire response, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause
2. where a party asserts juror nondisclosure during voir dire as a ground for a new trial, the normal procedure is to remand the issue to the trial court for resolution; an evidentiary hearing is the appropriate forum in which to develop the full circumstances surrounding each part of the new trial test
3. although an evidentiary hearing is the usual procedure for resolving claims of juror dishonesty, the measure of proof required to trigger such an evidentiary hearing is a colorable claim of juror bias; the “colorable claim” test eliminates frivolous claims but keeps the door open for claims that may prove valid upon further examination
4. a colorable claim of juror dishonesty was made in this case where an officer of the court declared under penalty of perjury that a panel member provided a contradictory voir dire response on a critical issue less than one month after appellant’s trial

Trial Stages: Petition for a New Trial: Generally

1. to obtain a new trial due to an incorrect voir dire response, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause
2. where a party asserts juror nondisclosure during voir dire as a ground for a new trial, the normal procedure is to remand the issue to the trial court for resolution; an evidentiary hearing is the appropriate forum in which to develop the full circumstances surrounding each part of the new trial test
3. although an evidentiary hearing is the usual procedure for resolving claims of juror dishonesty, the measure of proof required to trigger such an evidentiary hearing is a colorable claim of juror bias; the “colorable claim” test eliminates frivolous claims but keeps the door open for claims that may prove valid upon further examination
4. a colorable claim of juror dishonesty was made in this case where an officer of the court declared under penalty of perjury that a panel member provided a contradictory voir dire response on a critical issue less than one month after appellant’s trial