U.S. v. Sanders, 67 M.J. 344

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Generally

1. as the sentencing authority, a military judge is presumed to know the law and apply it correctly, absent clear evidence to the contrary

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Prejudice

1. during the sentencing phase of a court-martial, any error in the admission of a handwritten letter found in appellant’s pretrial confinement cell that contained a farrago of bequests, assertions, excuses, and advice, some of which attacked the military justice system and accused the military judge of favoring the prosecution, did not substantially influence the adjudged sentence and did not materially prejudice the substantial rights of appellant where the military judge stated that she would not consider the personal attack on her contained therein, where there is no indication that the military judge gave significant weight to the rest of the letter in arriving at the adjudged sentence, where appellant only received confinement for 14 years when the maximum sentence included confinement for life without eligibility for parole, and where appellant’s crimes were severe

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Burdens, Standards, Etc. › Presumptions

1. as the sentencing authority, a military judge is presumed to know the law and apply it correctly, absent clear evidence to the contrary
2. an appellate court presumes that a military judge follows her own rulings

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Evidence

1. during the sentencing phase of a court-martial, any error in the admission of a handwritten letter found in appellant’s pretrial confinement cell that contained a farrago of bequests, assertions, excuses, and advice, some of which attacked the military justice system and accused the military judge of favoring the prosecution, did not substantially influence the adjudged sentence and did not materially prejudice the substantial rights of appellant where the military judge stated that she would not consider the personal attack on her contained therein, where there is no indication that the military judge gave significant weight to the rest of the letter in arriving at the adjudged sentence, where appellant only received confinement for 14 years when the maximum sentence included confinement for life without eligibility for parole, and where appellant’s crimes were severe

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. under Article 59(a), UCMJ, an error of law with respect to a sentence can provide a basis for relief only where that error materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused
2. the test for prejudice from the erroneous admission of evidence during the sentencing phase of a court-martial is whether the error substantially influenced the adjudged sentence
3. during the sentencing phase of a court-martial, any error in the admission of a handwritten letter found in appellant’s pretrial confinement cell that contained a farrago of bequests, assertions, excuses, and advice, some of which attacked the military justice system and accused the military judge of favoring the prosecution, did not substantially influence the adjudged sentence and did not materially prejudice the substantial rights of appellant where the military judge stated that she would not consider the personal attack on her contained therein, where there is no indication that the military judge gave significant weight to the rest of the letter in arriving at the adjudged sentence, where appellant only received confinement for 14 years when the maximum sentence included confinement for life without eligibility for parole, and where appellant’s crimes were severe

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

1. as the sentencing authority, a military judge is presumed to know the law and apply it correctly, absent clear evidence to the contrary
2. an appellate court presumes that a military judge follows her own rulings