U.S. v. Claxton, 76 M.J. 356

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Due Process

1. the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution

Military Justice Personnel: Prosecution Function: Trial Counsel

1. in response to a defense discovery request, it is the duty of the trial counsel to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf, including the police, and disclose it to the defense
2. the prosecutor is the representative of a sovereignty whose interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done; the prosecutor may prosecute with earnestness and vigor, but while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones; it is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Generally

1. the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution
2. in military practice, where an appellant demonstrates that the government failed to disclose discoverable evidence in response to a specific request or as a result of prosecutorial misconduct, the appellant will be entitled to relief unless the government can show that nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; failing to disclose requested material favorable to the defense is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the undisclosed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Burdens, Standards, Etc. › Admission/suppression of evidence

1. in military practice, where an appellant demonstrates that the government failed to disclose discoverable evidence in response to a specific request or as a result of prosecutorial misconduct, the appellant will be entitled to relief unless the government can show that nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; failing to disclose requested material favorable to the defense is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the undisclosed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Discovery

1. the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution
2. the duty to disclose evidence material either to guilt or to punishment is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused, and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence
3. in military practice, where an appellant demonstrates that the government failed to disclose discoverable evidence in response to a specific request or as a result of prosecutorial misconduct, the appellant will be entitled to relief unless the government can show that nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; failing to disclose requested material favorable to the defense is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the undisclosed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. in military practice, where an appellant demonstrates that the government failed to disclose discoverable evidence in response to a specific request or as a result of prosecutorial misconduct, the appellant will be entitled to relief unless the government can show that nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; failing to disclose requested material favorable to the defense is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the undisclosed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial
2. in this case, with respect to all of the alleged offenses, the government’s failure to disclose to the defense that government witnesses were confidential informants was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the findings and sentence where the testimony of the informants was either relatively unimportant and cumulative with that of other witnesses or was corroborated by other witnesses and in view of appellant’s admissions

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

1. in military practice, where an appellant demonstrates that the government failed to disclose discoverable evidence in response to a specific request or as a result of prosecutorial misconduct, the appellant will be entitled to relief unless the government can show that nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; failing to disclose requested material favorable to the defense is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the undisclosed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial