U.S. v. McAllister, 64 M.J. 248

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Right to Present a Defense

1. just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense; this right is a fundamental element of due process of law
2. in light of the evidence derived from DNA re-testing and revealed at the DuBay factfinding hearing on remand, the military judge’s error in denying the accused’s request for expert DNA assistance and refusing to permit a re-test of certain evidence for the presence of DNA deprived the accused of his due process right to present evidence establishing a defense based on the discovery of DNA from three unidentified individuals on the victim’s fingernails

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Witnesses: Production of

1. just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense; this right is a fundamental element of due process of law

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. the military judge’s constitutional error in denying the accused’s request for expert DNA assistance and refusing to permit a re-test of certain evidence for the presence of DNA was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the re-testing revealed the presence of DNA from three unidentified individuals on the victim’s fingernails, and the new DNA evidence would have allowed the defense the opportunity to raise a reasonable doubt

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

1. if the military judge’s error was not of constitutional dimension, the appropriate standard is whether the court-martial’s findings of guilty were substantially influenced by the error
2. a four-part test is employed to evaluate prejudice under the standard of review appropriate to a non-constitutional evidentiary error: (1) the strength of the government’s case, (2) the strength of the defense case, (3) the materiality of the evidence in question, and (4) the quality of the evidence in question
3. if the military judge commits constitutional error by depriving an accused of his right to present a defense, the test for prejudice on appellate review is whether the appellate court is able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the government must demonstrate that there was no reasonable possibility that the absence of potentially exculpatory evidence contributed to the contested findings of guilty
4. an appellate court reviews de novo the question of whether a constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt