U.S. v. Lopez, 76 M.J. 151

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. in prosecution of appellant for allegedly committing indecent liberties with a child by introducing his stepson to pornography, the military judge abused his discretion in admitting testimony from appellant’s wife that amounted to human lie detector testimony, where she recounted that during a conversation between her son and husband about the alleged offense, appellant had stated that if he had done anything wrong, he was sorry, a statement that his wife interpreted as being a loose admission of guilt, and where she in effect testified that her son was telling the truth and her husband was not

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Opinion Testimony

1. human lie detector testimony is an opinion as to whether a person was truthful in making a specific statement regarding a fact at issue in the case; such testimony is inadmissible at a court-martial because it is a fundamental premise of our criminal trial system that the factfinder is the lie detector and determines the weight and credibility of witness testimony
2. even without an express statement to the effect that a victim is truthful or lying, testimony from a witness may still be excluded as the functional equivalent of human lie detector testimony where the substance of the testimony leads the court members to infer that the witness believes the victim is truthful or deceitful with respect to an issue at trial
3. in prosecution of appellant for allegedly committing indecent liberties with a child by introducing his stepson to pornography, the military judge abused his discretion in admitting testimony from appellant’s wife that amounted to human lie detector testimony, where she recounted that during a conversation between her son and husband about the alleged offense, appellant had stated that if he had done anything wrong, he was sorry, a statement that his wife interpreted as being a loose admission of guilt, and where she in effect testified that her son was telling the truth and her husband was not
4. lay opinion testimony is only admissible if (1) the opinion is rationally based on the witness’s perception, and (2) the opinion is helpful either to an understanding of the testimony of the witness on the stand or to the determination of a fact in issue; when facially coherent communications are at issue, no lay interpretation will be helpful or admissible, unless the proponent establishes a foundation that calls into question the apparent coherence of the conversation so that it no longer seems clear, coherent, or legitimate
5. in prosecution of appellant for allegedly committing indecent liberties with a child by introducing his stepson to pornography, the erroneous admission of what was in effect human lie detector testimony by appellant’s wife was materially prejudicial where the error may well have transformed appellant’s noncommittal apology into a material admission of guilt and a validation of the stepson’s story, as interpreted by the wife

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. material prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused occurs when an error creates an unfair prejudicial impact on the court members’ deliberations; in other words, the accused must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different
2. in prosecution of appellant for allegedly raping his wife, any error in the admission of testimony from his stepdaughter that he had probably committed the alleged rape did not result in material prejudice where the government’s very strong case that included the wife’s direct testimony to the event, physical evidence, including marks of a struggle and appellant’s DNA inside of his wife, his two stepchildren’s testimony that they heard “sad noises” and “get off me” coming from their mother’s bedroom, his wife’s immediate reporting of the assault, and her searches for “spousal rape” on the Internet the next day
3. an appellate court evaluates prejudice from an erroneous evidentiary ruling by weighing (1) the strength of the Government’s case, (2) the strength of the defense case, (3) the materiality of the evidence in question, and (4) the quality of the evidence in question
4. in prosecution of appellant for allegedly committing indecent liberties with a child by introducing his stepson to pornography, the erroneous admission of what was in effect human lie detector testimony by appellant’s wife was materially prejudicial where the error may well have transformed appellant’s noncommittal apology into a material admission of guilt and a validation of the stepson’s story, as interpreted by the wife

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

1. when an appellant has forfeited a right by failing to raise it at trial, an appellate court reviews for plain error; appellant thus has the burden of establishing (1) error that is (2) clear or obvious and (3) results in material prejudice to his substantial rights; failure to establish any one of the prongs is fatal to a plain error claim
2. material prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused occurs when an error creates an unfair prejudicial impact on the court members’ deliberations; in other words, the accused must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different
3. an evidentiary issue that has been preserved with a timely objection is reviewed by an appellate court not for plain error, but for abuse of discretion
4. an appellate court evaluates prejudice from an erroneous evidentiary ruling by weighing (1) the strength of the Government’s case, (2) the strength of the defense case, (3) the materiality of the evidence in question, and (4) the quality of the evidence in question