U.S. v. Harris, 61 M.J. 391

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. a guilty plea will be rejected only where the record of trial shows a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the plea
2. a plea of guilty waives a number of important constitutional rights; as a result, the waiver of these rights must be an informed one
3. in this case, there is a substantial basis in law and fact to question the accused’s pleas of guilty where the military judge concluded after holding a post-trial Article 39(a) session that the accused suffered a severe mental defect or disease at the time of the offenses; the accused could not make an informed plea without knowledge that he suffered a severe mental disease or defect at the time of the offenses, nor was it possible for a military judge to conduct the necessary Care inquiry into an accused’s pleas without exploring the impact of any potential mental health issues on those pleas

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

1. a guilty plea will be rejected only where the record of trial shows a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the plea; an appellate court reviews de novo the military judge’s legal conclusion that an accused’s pleas were provident

Trial Stages: Petition for a New Trial: Generally

1. petitions for new trials are disfavored in the law; relief is granted only to avoid a manifest injustice
2. RCM 1210, the rule on petitions for new trial, expressly precludes its application to guilty pleas

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

1. RCM 1210(f)(2) provides that a new trial shall not be granted on the grounds of newly discovered evidence unless the petition demonstrates that (1) the evidence was discovered after the trial; (2) the evidence is not such that it would have been discovered by the petitioner at the time of trial in the exercise of due diligence; and (3) the newly discovered evidence, if considered by a court-martial in the light of all other pertinent evidence, would probably produce a substantially more favorable result for the accused
2. the accused exercised due diligence, as required for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence of his mental state at the time of the alleged offenses, even if he failed to disclose information about his mental state at the pretrial sanity board, where his counsel requested such a board
3. in light of the newly discovered post-trial evidence regarding the accused’s mental illness at the time of the offenses, the competing views as to its impact on responsibility, and the defense counsel’s consequent inability to prepare and fully develop an affirmative defense of mental responsibility prior to trial, this evidence would probably produce a substantially more favorable result for the accused on the contested offenses, thus fulfilling the requirements for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence

Trial Stages: Petition for a New Trial: Appellate Review

1. the appropriate standard of review for service courts considering the impact of newly discovered evidence regarding mental responsibility is a reasonable doubt standard: is the court convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that reasonable factfinders would not find by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time of the offense, appellant suffered from a severe mental disease or defect such as to be unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts?
2. because the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces does not have factfinding authority, it does not apply the reasonable doubt standard of the lower court in reviewing requests for new trials on the ground of mental responsibility; rather, it applies the separate standard set forth in RCM 1210(f)(2)(C) that requires that the accused demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence, if considered by a court-martial in the light of all other pertinent evidence, would probably produce a substantially more favorable result for the accused