U.S. v. Adams, 74 M.J. 137

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. when independent evidence which is sufficient to corroborate an essential fact is provided, that essential fact is admissible; if sufficient corroborating evidence of an essential fact is not provided, then the uncorroborated fact is not admissible and the military judge must excise it from the confession; the essential facts which are corroborated may be used against the accused alongside any other properly admitted evidence
2. there is no tipping point of corroboration that would allow admission of the entire confession if a certain percentage of essential facts are found to be corroborated; for instance, if four of five essential facts were corroborated, the entire confession is not admissible; only the four corroborated facts are admissible, and the military judge is required to excise the uncorroborated essential fact; this analysis is completed by the military judge examining the potential corroboration for each essential fact the government wishes to admit

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. in this case, the military judge abused his discretion when he admitted numerous uncorroborated essential facts from appellant’s confession to larceny of cocaine; in a case where the only direct evidence of the crime was the confession, it is important to determine what was not corroborated; here, there was no evidence that corroborated appellant’s opportunity or motive to commit the crime, his access, his intent, the accomplices involved, the subject of the larceny (i.e., cocaine), the time of the crime, or the act of the larceny itself (appellant’s waving a handgun while an accomplice grabbed the cocaine); in short, virtually none of the facts previously articulated as essential to corroborating a confession were corroborated; even if one were to assume that the evidence relied upon below (the possession of a handgun, testimony concerning the existence of a specific drug dealer, and testimony regarding the location of a store and a hotel) properly corroborated the location of the larceny and the identity of the victim, those facts, combined with the ownership of the handgun, were legally insufficient to support the larceny conviction absent any additional direct evidence of a crime; and because the confession was the government’s key piece of evidence, the admission of the uncorroborated essential facts was prejudicial to appellant

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Confessions and Admissions › Corroboration

1. MRE 304(c) reads, in pertinent part that an admission or a confession of the accused may be considered as evidence against the accused only if independent evidence has been introduced that corroborates the essential facts admitted to justify sufficiently an inference of their truth; if the independent evidence raises an inference of the truth of some but not all of the essential facts admitted, then the confession or admission may be considered as evidence against the accused only with respect to those essential facts stated in the confession or admission that are corroborated by the independent evidence
2. MRE 304(c) requires an amount of independent evidence sufficient to justify an inference of truth of the essential facts admitted from the confession; while a sufficient amount of evidence can be slight, the evidence must nevertheless be sufficient in quantity and quality to meet the plain language of the rule
3. the standard in MRE 304(c) is not a “trustworthiness” standard, where, if one part of the confession is found to be “trustworthy,” that “trustworthiness” can be extrapolated to those portions of the confession which are not supported by independent evidence, thereby allowing the entire confession to be admitted into evidence; MRE 304(c) expressly rejects the concept of extrapolating “trustworthiness” by requiring independent evidence of each essential fact to be corroborated
4. the corroboration requirement for admission of a confession at court-martial does not necessitate independent evidence of all the elements of an offense or even the corpus delicti of the confessed offense; rather, the corroborating evidence must raise only an inference of truth as to the essential facts admitted; nevertheless, the evidence corroborating the essential facts of the confession must be independent
5. what constitutes an essential fact of an admission or confession necessarily varies by case; essential facts include the time, place, persons involved, access, opportunity, method, and motive of the crime
6. when independent evidence which is sufficient to corroborate an essential fact is provided, that essential fact is admissible; if sufficient corroborating evidence of an essential fact is not provided, then the uncorroborated fact is not admissible and the military judge must excise it from the confession; the essential facts which are corroborated may be used against the accused alongside any other properly admitted evidence
7. there is no tipping point of corroboration that would allow admission of the entire confession if a certain percentage of essential facts are found to be corroborated; for instance, if four of five essential facts were corroborated, the entire confession is not admissible; only the four corroborated facts are admissible and the military judge is required to excise the uncorroborated essential fact; this analysis is completed by the military judge examining the potential corroboration for each essential fact the government wishes to admit
8. in this case, the military judge abused his discretion when he admitted numerous uncorroborated essential facts from appellant’s confession to larceny of cocaine; in a case where the only direct evidence of the crime was the confession, it is important to determine what was not corroborated; here, there was no evidence that corroborated appellant’s opportunity or motive to commit the crime, his access, his intent, the accomplices involved, the subject of the larceny (i.e., cocaine), the time of the crime, or the act of the larceny itself (appellant’s waving a handgun while an accomplice grabbed the cocaine); in short, virtually none of the facts previously articulated as essential to corroborating a confession were corroborated; even if one were to assume that the evidence relied upon below (the possession of a handgun, testimony concerning the existence of a specific drug dealer, and testimony regarding the location of a store and a hotel) properly corroborated the location of the larceny and the identity of the victim, those facts, combined with the ownership of the handgun, were legally insufficient to support the larceny conviction absent any additional direct evidence of a crime; and because the confession was the government’s key piece of evidence, the admission of the uncorroborated essential facts was prejudicial to appellant

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. because the confession was the government’s key piece of evidence, the admission of the uncorroborated essential facts was prejudicial to appellant

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion