U.S. v. Clayton, 67 M.J. 283

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Confrontation

1. the Sixth Amendment provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with witnesses against him; this right applies to testimonial statements made out of court because the declarant is a witness within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, and thus the accused must be afforded the right to cross-examine that witness
2. by admitting a German civilian police report and its English translation into evidence, the military judge committed constitutional error by infringing on appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the non-testifying witnesses whose statements were incorporated in the report

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Generally

1. by admitting a German civilian police report and its English translation into evidence, the military judge committed constitutional error by infringing on appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the non-testifying witnesses whose statements were incorporated in the report

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Hearsay › Generally

1. although the Supreme Court has not defined testimonial hearsay precisely, it has said that the distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial hearsay aims to guard against abuses at which the Confrontation Clause was directed, like use of ex parte examinations as evidence against the accused; the Supreme Court has identified statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial as an example of core testimonial hearsay; the CAAF has established a number of questions relevant in distinguishing between testimonial and nontestimonial hearsay made under circumstances that would cause an objective witness to reasonably believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial: first, was the statement at issue elicited by or made in response to law enforcement or prosecutorial inquiry; second, did the statement involve more than a routine and objective cataloging of unambiguous factual matters; and third, was the primary purpose for making, or eliciting, the statements the production of evidence with an eye toward trial
2. a German civilian police report describing the circumstances leading to appellant’s arrest for suspected drug possession, and the report’s English translation, constituted testimonial hearsay, where the report was prepared in the course of a drug investigation, involved more than a routine and objective cataloging of unambiguous factual matters, and was created with an eye toward trial

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Hearsay › Business entries

1. a German civilian police report describing the circumstances leading to appellant’s arrest for suspected drug possession would not qualify as either a business record or a public record

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Witnesses: Confrontation

1. the Sixth Amendment provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with witnesses against him; this right applies to testimonial statements made out of court because the declarant is a witness within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, and thus the accused must be afforded the right to cross-examine that witness

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. in this case, the government did not carry its burden of showing that the error in admitting the German civilian police report into evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where the report effectively relieved the government of its burden to present direct testimony regarding where the marijuana was recovered, how it was traced to appellant, and other necessary elements to prove that appellant possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion
2. an appellate court reviews factfinding under the clearly-erroneous standard and conclusions of law under the de novo standard
3. whether evidence constitutes testimonial hearsay is a question of law reviewed de novo
4. the government bears the burden of establishing that a constitutional error has no causal effect upon the findings; to carry its burden in this case, the government had to demonstrate that there was no reasonable possibility that the testimonial German civilian police report contributed to the contested finding of guilty to possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute