U.S. v. Gardinier, 67 M.J. 304

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Polygraph

1. MRE 707 prohibits the results of a polygraph examination and the opinion of a polygraph examiner from being admitted into evidence; polygraph evidence is prohibited because the reliability of polygraph evidence has not been sufficiently established and its use at trial impinges upon the integrity of the judicial system

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. in assessing harmlessness in the constitutional context, the question is not whether the evidence is legally sufficient to uphold appellant’s conviction without the erroneously admitted evidence; rather, the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction; to say that an error did not contribute to the verdict is to find that error unimportant in relation to everything else the factfinder considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record
2. in Confrontation Clause cases, an appellate court frequently looks to the factors set forth in Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986), to assess whether an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; these factors include the importance of a witness’s testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case
3. erroneous admission of (1) a videotape of appellant’s five-year-old daughter’s interview with civilian law enforcement, in which the daughter stated that appellant had touched her inappropriately (a tape which the military judge as factfinder called direct evidence that was more probative than any other evidence), (2) a videotape of appellant’s interview with civilian law enforcement and a CID agent in which he made incriminating statements, (3) statements by the daughter to a sexual assault nurse consistent with her videotaped interview, and (4) appellant’s written statement that closely paralleled the admissions he made during the videotaped interview, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in a prosecution for committing indecent acts with a child under 16 years of age, where the videotapes and incriminating statements, when balanced with the remaining evidence of record, were not unimportant to the factfinder; in analyzing all of the erroneously admitted evidence and the remaining evidence of record under the Van Arsdall factors, there was a reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence might have contributed to the conviction

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

1. for most constitutional errors at trial, an appellate court applies the harmless error test set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), to determine whether the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; evidence admitted in violation of Article 31, UCMJ, or the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is subject to that standard; whether a constitutional error in admitting evidence is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo