U.S. v. Staton, 69 M.J. 228

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting evidence of prosecutor intimidation as evidence of consciousness of guilt, where the military judge addressed the general risk that the members would treat this evidence of uncharged acts as character evidence and use it to infer that the accused had acted in character, and thus convict, with a detailed and tailored instruction regarding appropriate use of this information

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Generally

1. spoliation refers to the intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Relevance

1. it is well established that witness intimidation is relevant evidence to demonstrate consciousness of guilt

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Uncharged Misconduct

1. evidence of uncharged misconduct is impermissible for the purpose of showing a predisposition toward crime or criminal character; however, uncharged misconduct can be admitted for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident; one of the other purposes for which uncharged misconduct may be admissible is evidence of consciousness of guilt
2. it is well established that witness intimidation is relevant evidence to demonstrate consciousness of guilt
3. evidence of prosecutor intimidation raises an inference from which a factfinder could reasonably infer consciousness of guilt; human nature sometimes prompts persons to strike out at those who seek to reveal misconduct or expose illegal acts; this might be done in anger, frustration, fear, an effort to deter or all four reasons at once; whether such an inference is well founded in context is for the factfinder to decide

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

1. an appellate court reviews the military judge’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion
2. an appellate court reviews the admissibility of uncharged misconduct under MRE 404(b) using a three-part test: (1) Does the evidence reasonably support a finding by the court members that appellant committed prior crimes, wrongs or acts; (2) What fact of consequence is made more or less probable by the existence of this evidence - a question of logical relevance; and, (3) Is the probative value substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice