U.S. v. White, 69 M.J. 236

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Generally

1. defendants do not have a constitutional right to present any and all evidence, but only that evidence which is logically and legally relevant

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. the military judge has the initial responsibility to determine whether evidence is relevant within the meaning of MRE 401

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. in a prosecution for signing a false official document relating to the accused’s response about her criminal history on an AF Form 1540, Application for Clinical Privileges/Medical Staff Appointment, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding Army credentialing forms previously completed by the accused as irrelevant; the excluded forms were different in format and content from the AF Form 1540, they did not contain any questions concerning an applicant’s criminal history, were completed by the accused four to ten years prior to her completing the AF Form 1540, and contained no information that would make the existence of the accused’s intent to deceive more or less probable
2. in a prosecution for signing a false official document relating to the accused’s response about her criminal history on an AF Form 1540, Application for Clinical Privileges/Medical Staff Appointment, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding as irrelevant the lay opinions of three witnesses as to the meaning of the criminal history question, specifically that these witnesses interpreted that question to refer only to convictions which occurred during the applicant’s practice history; in order to be relevant, the lay opinions must have some nexus to the accused’s state of mind when she completed the AF Form 1540; however, none of the witnesses discussed their interpretations of the criminal history question with the accused before she completed the form; without evidence that would have established a nexus, their opinions were merely their own and had no relation to the accused’s state of mind or her intent when she completed the AF 1540

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Opinion Testimony

1. in a prosecution for signing a false official document relating to the accused’s response about her criminal history on an AF Form 1540, Application for Clinical Privileges/Medical Staff Appointment, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding as irrelevant the lay opinions of three witnesses as to the meaning of the criminal history question, specifically that these witnesses interpreted that question to refer only to convictions which occurred during the applicant’s practice history; in order to be relevant, the lay opinions must have some nexus to the accused’s state of mind when she completed the AF Form 1540; however, none of the witnesses discussed their interpretations of the criminal history question with the accused before she completed the form; without evidence that would have established a nexus, their opinions were merely their own and had no relation to the accused’s state of mind or her intent when she completed the AF 1540

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Relevance

1. defendants do not have a constitutional right to present any and all evidence, but only that evidence which is logically and legally relevant
2. at a court-martial, an accused is entitled to present relevant evidence that is not otherwise inadmissible
3. MRE 401 provides that relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence; relevant evidence is admissible; evidence that is not relevant is not admissible; the relevance standard is a low threshold
4. in a prosecution for signing a false official document relating to the accused’s response about her criminal history on an AF Form 1540, Application for Clinical Privileges/Medical Staff Appointment, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding Army credentialing forms previously completed by the accused as irrelevant; the excluded forms were different in format and content from the AF Form 1540, they did not contain any questions concerning an applicant’s criminal history, were completed by the accused four to ten years prior to her completing the AF Form 1540, and contained no information that would make the existence of the accused’s intent to deceive more or less probable

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion; the abuse of discretion standard is a strict one, calling for more than a mere difference of opinion; the challenged action must be arbitrary, fanciful, clearly unreasonable, or clearly erroneous; the military judge’s findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard and conclusions of law, de novo; if the court finds the military judge abused his discretion, it then reviews the prejudicial effect of the ruling de novo