U.S. v. Beatty, 64 M.J. 456

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Presumptions, Inferences

1. the judges of the courts of criminal appeals, as senior judge advocates, are presumed to know and correctly apply the law; the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will impute no intent to engage in fundamental unfairness or rely upon off-limits tactics to the courts of criminal appeals

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. in enacting the UCMJ, Congress saw fit to give the courts of criminal appeals very broad powers with respect to the approved findings and sentences of courts-martial; in a case referred to it, the court of criminal appeals may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority; it may affirm only such findings of guilty, and the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence, as it finds correct in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved; in considering the record, it may weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, and determine controverted questions of fact, recognizing that the trial court saw and heard the witnesses
2. courts of criminal appeals are intermediate appellate judicial tribunals, with an awesome, plenary de novo power of review that grants unto the court authority to substitute its judgment for that of the military judge and for that of the court members; a court of criminal appeals may not affirm the findings and sentence of a court-martial unless it finds them to be both factually and legally sufficient
3. the judges of the courts of criminal appeals, as senior judge advocates, are presumed to know and correctly apply the law; the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will impute no intent to engage in fundamental unfairness or rely upon off-limits tactics to the courts of criminal appeals
4. both legal and factual sufficiency are matters for courts of criminal appeals to consider de novo

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Factual sufficiency

1. in their review of court-martial findings, that is, of guilt and innocence, courts of criminal appeals are limited to the evidence presented at trial

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Sentence appropriateness

1. in their review of the sentence appropriateness of a court-martial conviction, courts of criminal appeals may consider not only evidence admitted at trial, but also the matters considered by the convening authority in his action on the sentence

Trial Stages: Appeals: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will impute no intent to engage in fundamental unfairness or rely upon off-limits tactics to the courts of criminal appeals; the judges of the courts of criminal appeals, as senior judge advocates, are presumed to know and correctly apply the law

Trial Stages: Appeals: Remedies › Generally

1. remand to the court of criminal appeals for a proper factual and legal sufficiency review of the findings of guilty of indecent liberties with a child and indecent acts with a child was the appropriate remedy, where the assessment of the alleged victim’s credibility by the court of criminal appeals was at best ambiguous; from the record, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces could not determine whether the court of criminal appeals in fact considered evidence from outside the record – that is, whether it considered the alleged victim’s testimony in pretrial motion practice or in presentencing on the issue of her credibility
2. in a case where the underlying validity of the Article 66(c), UCMJ, review is in question, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces does not test for prejudice; rather, the remedy is to remand the case for a proper factual and legal sufficiency review of the findings of guilty

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

1. both legal and factual sufficiency are matters for courts of criminal appeals to consider de novo