U.S. v. Quintanilla, 63 M.J. 29

Military Justice Personnel: Court Members: Challenges for Cause

1. under RCM 912(f)(1)(N), a panel member shall be excused for cause when the member should not sit in the interest of having the court-martial free from substantial doubt as to legality, fairness, and impartiality; under this provision, a member who has an inelastic opinion concerning an appropriate sentence for the offenses charged may be challenged
2. when the issue of an inelastic opinion arises in a capital case with respect to the imposition of the death penalty, the applicable legal standard for determining whether a prospective member could be excluded for cause because of his views on capital punishment is whether the member’s views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a member in accordance with his instructions and his oath
3. in this case, the military judge erred in granting a government’s challenge for cause on a member in a capital case who indicated that as a religious person, he would pray in the course of making an important decision, but repeatedly emphasized that no restrictions on voting for the death penalty flowed from his religious affiliation; the military judge focused erroneously on the religious beliefs of the member and failed to find that the member’s views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a member in accordance with his instructions and his oath; the member’s statement that he would pray in the course of making an important decision contains no suggestion that his religious beliefs would preclude him from following and applying the instructions of the military judge in accordance with his oath as a panel member

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Witnesses: Sequestration

1. Military Rule of Evidence 615 provides for the exclusion of witnesses at the request of either party

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. prejudice under the witness sequestration rule, MRE 615, is determined by considering whether a witness’s testimony was affected by the trial proceedings that the witness heard; in this case, any error in allowing witnesses who were relatives of the victim to remain in the courtroom during the findings phase of the trial was harmless, where the witnesses testified only on sentencing, and even if their testimony was altered by what they heard at trial, the effect would not have been relevant to the members’ determination of guilt and the sentence was being reversed on other grounds

Trial Stages: Appeals: Remedies › Generally

1. the improper exclusion of a member for being opposed to capital punishment does not result in an unrepresentative panel on the issue of guilt or substantially increase the risk of conviction; consequently, in this case, where the military judge erroneously granted a government challenge for cause because of the judge’s concerns regarding the member’s ability to impose the death penalty, the appropriate remedy was an affirmance of the findings but a reversal of the sentence; here, the military judge’s erroneous ruling had no impact on the defense’s right to exercise its single peremptory challenge, and there was no allegation that any of the members who sat on the panel held a bias against appellant or otherwise should have been disqualified

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision on a challenge for cause for a clear abuse of discretion
2. an abuse of discretion occurs if the military judge’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous or if the decision is influenced by an erroneous view of the law
3. a military judge’s ruling on a challenge for cause is given great deference; in the course of reviewing the military judge’s ruling on a challenge for cause, it is appropriate to recognize the military judge’s superior position to evaluate the demeanor of court members
4. although the CAAF takes into account the views of the CCA on challenges for cause, it typically employs a direct review of the ruling of the military judge
5. the CCA erred in applying a heightened standard of review on a military judge’s ruling on a challenge for cause; the careful scrutiny that accompanies capital cases is not incompatible with applying the same standard of review used in a non-capital case on a military judge’s ruling on a challenge for cause after that scrutiny has been completed
6. the CCA erred in relying on a post-trial affidavit of a challenged member to assess the validity of the ruling by the military judge on that challenge where it did not identify any reason to depart from the normal practice of relying on the factual information developed in the record of trial when addressing challenges for cause
7. the CAAF reviews the question of whether the remedy developed by the CCA for a military judge’s erroneous granting of a causal challenge was appropriate for an abuse of discretion
8. Supreme Court precedents developed in cases arising outside the military justice system are applied as precedents in the military justice system unless distinguishable based upon unique military justice considerations

Miscellaneous Matters: Professional Responsibility / Ethics: Generally

1. although the assistant trial counsel’s ex parte communication with the Article 32 investigating officer prior to trial was improper (violating the prohibition against certain ex parte communications), that improper conversation did not result in prejudice, particularly in light of the military judge’s finding that the conversation had no bearing on the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation
2. any error in the assistant trial counsel sending two ex parte e-mail messages to the prospective members of the panel advising them about the trial schedule was harmless even though he wrote the e-mails with the goal of establishing favorable opinions and trust from the members; although the assistant trial counsel may have had a subjective ulterior motive in sending the e-mails, an objective reading of the e-mails did not reveal this motive; considering the extent and strength of the evidence against appellant in this case, these e-mails would not have influenced the members’ determination of guilt
3. the ethical rule prohibiting attorneys from acting as both an advocate and a witness on the same matter was violated in this case when, during the court-martial, trial counsel testified on a motion and then argued the motion, relying on his own testimony; however, this violation was harmless where the motion was argued in an Article 39(a) session outside the presence of the members and would not have impacted the members’ findings
4. although the trial counsel and assistant trial counsel impermissibly withheld evidence from the evidence custodian (violating the prohibition against an attorney engaging in illegal and unethical conduct), given the post-trial timing of this conduct, however, it did not prejudice appellant’s court-martial