U.S. v. Crudup, 67 M.J. 92

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Confrontation

1. the denial of an accused’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a witness may be tested for harmlessness
2. a Sixth Amendment error in admitting an out-of-court statement that appellant’s wife made to the military police regarding appellant’s assault on her and their infant son was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where the statement was unimportant in relation to everything else the military judge considered on the issue, the statement was cumulative, other evidence corroborated the statement, the defense was permitted to impeach the wife’s credibility with a prior conviction for fraud, and the government’s case was quite strong, including eyewitness testimony, corroborating physical injuries, and appellant’s partial confession; the statement did not contribute to the verdict as it was unimportant in relation to the other evidence of record

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Witnesses: Confrontation

1. the denial of an accused’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a witness may be tested for harmlessness
2. a Sixth Amendment error in admitting an out-of-court statement that appellant’s wife made to the military police regarding appellant’s assault on her and their infant son was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where the statement was unimportant in relation to everything else the military judge considered on the issue, the statement was cumulative, other evidence corroborated the statement, the defense was permitted to impeach the wife’s credibility with a prior conviction for fraud, and the government’s case was quite strong, including eyewitness testimony, corroborating physical injuries, and appellant’s partial confession; the statement did not contribute to the verdict as it was unimportant in relation to the other evidence of record

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. the denial of an accused’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a witness may be tested for harmlessness
2. appellant court will not set aside a conviction as the result of a constitutional error if it may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
3. whether a constitutional error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts; these factors include the importance of the 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; it is a better practice to review and balance all of these factors rather than rely on only one of them
4. 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
5. a Sixth Amendment error in admitting an out-of-court statement that appellant’s wife made to the military police regarding appellant’s assault on her and their infant son was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where the statement was unimportant in relation to everything else the military judge considered on the issue, the statement was cumulative, other evidence corroborated the statement, the defense was permitted to impeach the wife’s credibility with a prior conviction for fraud, and the government’s case was quite strong, including eyewitness testimony, corroborating physical injuries, and appellant’s partial confession; the statement did not contribute to the verdict as it was unimportant in relation to the other evidence of record

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

1. the denial of an accused’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a witness may be tested for harmlessness
2. appellant court will not set aside a conviction as the result of a constitutional error if it may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
3. whether a constitutional error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts; these factors include the importance of the 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; it is a better practice to review and balance all of these factors rather than rely on only one of them
4. 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