U.S. v. Campos, 67 M.J. 330

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Stipulations

1. entering into a stipulation of expected testimony is not necessarily the equivalent of consenting to the admission of the testimony
2. in this case, appellant, who as part of a negotiated pretrial agreement, entered into a stipulation of expected testimony of a psychologist who had expertise in evaluating and treating sexual offenders, waived any right to claim error on the ground that the witness did not personally appear to present live testimony at sentencing in a child pornography prosecution, where the stipulation amounted to an agreement between appellant, defense counsel, and trial counsel that if the witness were called to testify, he would testify under oath as reflected in the document, the military judge provided appellant with a detailed explanation of the stipulation, appellant agreed to the “use of” the stipulation, and defense counsel represented that he desired to enter into the stipulation
3. after appellant in a child pornography prosecution entered into a stipulation of expected testimony of a psychologist who had expertise in evaluating and treating sexual offenders, defense counsel waived the issue of admissibility of the substance of the stipulation at sentencing by answering “no” when the military judge asked for objections; although the stipulation did not expressly consent to the admission of the witness’s testimony, defense counsel had advance notice of the substance of the testimony, reviewed the expected testimony, and considered the impact of the stipulation on appellant’s case

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. a forfeiture is basically an oversight; a waiver is a deliberate decision not to present a ground for relief that might be available in the law; while an appellate court reviews forfeited issues for plain error, it cannot review waived issues at all because a valid waiver leaves no error for the court to correct on appeal; in determining whether a particular circumstance constitutes a waiver or a forfeiture, an appellate court considers whether the failure to raise the objection at the trial level constituted an intentional relinquishment of a known right
2. if this were simply a case where testimony came into evidence without any objection or comment from defense counsel, an appellate court would review for plain error
3. MRE 103(d) allows appellate courts to recognize plain errors that materially prejudice an accused’s substantial rights even though defense counsel has failed to make a timely objection; the plain error standard is met when (1) an error was committed; (2) the error was plain, or clear, or obvious; and (3) the error resulted in material prejudice to substantial rights

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

1. a forfeiture is basically an oversight; a waiver is a deliberate decision not to present a ground for relief that might be available in the law; while an appellate court reviews forfeited issues for plain error, it cannot review waived issues at all because a valid waiver leaves no error for the court to correct on appeal; in determining whether a particular circumstance constitutes a waiver or a forfeiture, an appellate court considers whether the failure to raise the objection at the trial level constituted an intentional relinquishment of a known right
2. if this were simply a case where testimony came into evidence without any objection or comment from defense counsel, an appellate court would review for plain error
3. MRE 103(d) allows appellate courts to recognize plain errors that materially prejudice an accused’s substantial rights even though defense counsel has failed to make a timely objection; the plain error standard is met when (1) an error was committed; (2) the error was plain, or clear, or obvious; and (3) the error resulted in material prejudice to substantial rights

Trial Stages: Appeals: Waiver

1. a forfeiture is basically an oversight; a waiver is a deliberate decision not to present a ground for relief that might be available in the law; while an appellate court reviews forfeited issues for plain error, it cannot review waived issues at all because a valid waiver leaves no error for the court to correct on appeal; in determining whether a particular circumstance constitutes a waiver or a forfeiture, an appellate court considers whether the failure to raise the objection at the trial level constituted an intentional relinquishment of a known right
2. in this case, appellant, who as part of a negotiated pretrial agreement, entered into a stipulation of expected testimony of a psychologist who had expertise in evaluating and treating sexual offenders, waived any right to claim error on the ground that the witness did not personally appear to present live testimony at sentencing in a child pornography prosecution, where the stipulation amounted to an agreement between appellant, defense counsel, and trial counsel that if the witness were called to testify, he would testify under oath as reflected in the document, the military judge provided appellant with a detailed explanation of the stipulation, appellant agreed to the “use of” the stipulation, and defense counsel represented that he desired to enter into the stipulation
3. after appellant in a child pornography prosecution entered into a stipulation of expected testimony of a psychologist who had expertise in evaluating and treating sexual offenders, defense counsel waived the issue of admissibility of the substance of the stipulation at sentencing by answering “no” when the military judge asked for objections; although the stipulation did not expressly consent to the admission of the witness’s testimony, defense counsel had advance notice of the substance of the testimony, reviewed the expected testimony, and considered the impact of the stipulation on appellant’s case