U.S. v. Savala, 70 M.J. 70

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Confrontation

1. the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation includes the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination; the right of cross-examination includes the opportunity to inquire into otherwise inadmissible matters if the prosecution, through its presentation, opens the door to consideration of such matters; the right of confrontation is subject to limitations, including the authority of the court to restrict the scope of cross-examination to avoid problems such as harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, or repetitive interrogation

Military Justice Personnel: Court Members: Generally

1. issues of witness credibility and motive are matters for the members to decide

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Credibility

1. the CCA did not clearly err in concluding that the prosecution opened the door to cross-examination of the victim with respect to a prior complaint of sexual assault that the defense contended was fabricated to protect her reputation, where the prosecution introduced evidence of the victim’s prior complaint to bolster her credibility with respect to the reasons for her delayed reporting of the charged offense, thereby benefiting the prosecution
2. issues of witness credibility and motive are matters for the members to decide

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Sexual Assault and Child Molestation

1. MRE 412 limits the admissibility of specified forms of evidence in sexual offense cases; the rule serves to protect victims of sexual offenses from the degrading and embarrassing disclosure of intimate details of their private lives while preserving the constitutional rights of the accused to present a defense
2. MRE 412(a), which generally prohibits the introduction of evidence regarding the alleged victim’s prior sexual behavior or the victim’s sexual predisposition, contains a number of exceptions to the general prohibition, including a provision for the admissibility of evidence the exclusion of which would violate the constitutional rights of the accused
3. MRE 412 constitutes a rule of exclusion; the defense bears the burden of demonstrating the admissibility of evidence that falls within the category of otherwise excludable evidence under MRE
4. the CCA did not clearly err in concluding that the prosecution opened the door to cross-examination of the victim with respect to a prior complaint of sexual assault that the defense contended was fabricated to protect her reputation, where the prosecution introduced evidence of the victim’s prior complaint to bolster her credibility with respect to the reasons for her delayed reporting of the charged offense, thereby benefiting the prosecution

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Witnesses: Confrontation

1. the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation includes the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination; the right of cross-examination includes the opportunity to inquire into otherwise inadmissible matters if the prosecution, through its presentation, opens the door to consideration of such matters; the right of confrontation is subject to limitations, including the authority of the court to restrict the scope of cross-examination to avoid problems such as harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, or repetitive interrogation
2. the CCA did not clearly err in concluding that the prosecution opened the door to cross-examination of the victim with respect to a prior complaint of sexual assault that the defense contended was fabricated to protect her reputation, where the prosecution introduced evidence of the victim’s prior complaint to bolster her credibility with respect to the reasons for her delayed reporting of the charged offense, thereby benefiting the prosecution
3. issues of witness credibility and motive are matters for the members to decide

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Witnesses: Impeachment of

1. the CCA did not clearly err in concluding that the prosecution opened the door to cross-examination of the victim with respect to a prior complaint of sexual assault that the defense contended was fabricated to protect her reputation, where the prosecution introduced evidence of the victim’s prior complaint to bolster her credibility with respect to the reasons for her delayed reporting of the charged offense, thereby benefiting the prosecution
2. issues of witness credibility and motive are matters for the members to decide

Trial Stages: Appeals: Invited Error / Open Door

1. the CCA did not clearly err in concluding that the prosecution opened the door to cross-examination of the victim with respect to a prior complaint of sexual assault that the defense contended was fabricated to protect her reputation, where the prosecution introduced evidence of the victim’s prior complaint to bolster her credibility with respect to the reasons for her delayed reporting of the charged offense, thereby benefiting the prosecution

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. for constitutional errors at trial, the government must persuade an appellate court that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
2. where the constitutional trial error is a violation of the Confrontation Clause, whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors that may include the importance of the witness’s testimony to the government’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence of contradictory or corroborating evidence, the extent of other cross-examination allowed, and the strength of the government case; an appellate court applies a four-part test in assessing prejudice in the event of an evidentiary error, balancing (1) the strength of the government’s case; (2) the strength of the defense case; (3) the materiality of the excluded evidence; and (4) the quality of the evidence in question; regardless of factors employed, the balancing test involves consideration of whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, an appellate court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
3. the decision of the military judge to permit the prosecution to use the victim’s prior allegation of sexual assault to enhance her credibility with respect to the reasons for her delayed reporting of the current allegation of sexual assault, while denying the defense an opportunity to explore the impact of that event on her credibility as to whether she fabricated the prior allegation to protect her reputation, constituted prejudicial error; appellant’s cross-examination of the victim on her prior allegation of being sexually assaulted could have convinced the panel that the prior allegation was false, and if the members believed that the victim had made a prior false allegation of rape, it may have tipped the credibility balance in appellant’s favor, where although the prosecution presented a strong circumstantial case at trial, the case relied on the testimony of a witness who had misled investigators about the underlying events, and who did not observe the sexual encounter at issue, and the hazy memory of the victim, impacted by her excessive consumption of alcohol, and where the case involved conflicting testimony between the victim and appellant about what happened at the critical time when they were the only two people present

Trial Stages: Appeals: Law of the Case

1. when a party does not appeal a ruling, the ruling of the lower court normally becomes the law of the case
2. the law-of-the-case doctrine involves the exercise of appellate discretion rather than binding legal doctrine; the law-of-the-case doctrine does not preclude an appellate court from examining the legal ruling of a subordinate court in a case where the JAG has not certified the issue; however, such a court is reluctant to exercise this power and, as a rule, reserves it for those cases where the lower court’s decision is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice if the parties were bound by it

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

1. an appellate court reviews the prejudicial effect of an erroneous evidentiary ruling de novo
2. for constitutional errors at trial, the government must persuade an appellate court that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
3. where the constitutional trial error is a violation of the Confrontation Clause, whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors that may include the importance of the witness’s testimony to the government’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence of contradictory or corroborating evidence, the extent of other cross-examination allowed, and the strength of the government case; an appellate court applies a four-part test in assessing prejudice in the event of an evidentiary error, balancing (1) the strength of the government’s case; (2) the strength of the defense case; (3) the materiality of the excluded evidence; and (4) the quality of the evidence in question; regardless of factors employed, the balancing test involves consideration of whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, an appellate court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt