U.S. v. Whiteeyes, 82 M.J. 168

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. in this case, the military judge did not err when he ruled that there were certain pieces of independent evidence that raised an inference of the truth of appellant’s admissions or confessions related to the sexual abuse of his stepdaughter; furthermore, the military judge did not abuse his discretion when he ruled that these pieces of independent evidence, when considered together, tended to establish the trustworthiness of appellant’s admissions or confessions and admitted appellant’s statements into evidence under MRE 304(c)

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

1. MRE 304(c)(1) prohibits a court-martial from considering an accused’s admission or confession as evidence of guilt unless independent evidence, either direct or circumstantial, has been admitted into evidence that would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the admission or confession
2. (it is a settled principle that a conviction must rest upon firmer ground than the uncorroborated admission or confession of the accused; this principle is based on the imperative to prevent errors in convictions based upon untrue confessions alone, and on the knowledge arising from judicial experience that confessions may be unreliable because they are coerced or induced
3. the corroboration rule outlined in MRE 304(c) is a rule designed to ensure that a conviction cannot be based solely on an uncorroborated, out-of-court admission or confession of the accused; this rule was specifically intended to guard against the admission at trial of false or coerced confessions
4. the corroboration rule outlined in MRE 304(c) does not apply to all admissions or confessions of an accused; corroboration is not required when an accused makes a statement at his own court-martial, when an accused makes a statement prior to or contemporaneously with the criminal conduct, or when the statement made by the accused is offered under a rule of evidence other than that pertaining to the admissibility of admissions or confessions
5. MRE 304(c) controls the standards and procedures that a military judge must employ when deciding whether an admission or confession of an accused has been corroborated; any elements of the common law doctrine of corpus delicti that conflict with the plain language of MRE 304(c) must yield to the rule
6. when the government seeks to introduce an admission or confession of an accused, it must proffer to the military judge evidence that it believes corroborates the accused’s statement; consistent with MRE 104(b), the military judge may admit into evidence each piece of the proffered evidence on a conditional basis in order to make his or her MRE 304(c) determination; in making this MRE 304(c) determination, the military judge first must decide whether the proffered evidence is in fact independent evidence; independent evidence cannot consist of other uncorroborated confessions or admissions of the accused that would themselves require corroboration; however, the independent evidence may be either direct or circumstantial; the military judge next must decide whether each piece of independent evidence raises an inference of the truth of the admission or confession; if an individual piece of independent evidence meets this threshold, the military judge may then use that evidence in the process of determining whether the accused’s statement is corroborated; a piece of independent evidence may reach this threshold even where it raises an inference of the truth only when considered alongside other independent evidence; the military judge finally must decide whether the pieces of independent evidence, considered together, corroborate the accused’s admission or confession; in making this determination, the military judge must assess whether the pieces of independent evidence would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the admission or confession; if they do, the military judge will rule that the accused’s statement is corroborated and will admit the statement into evidence; as a result, the trier of fact may consider the admission or confession as evidence against the accused on the question of guilt or innocence; however, the trier of fact may also consider the amount and type of evidence introduced as corroboration in determining the weight, if any, to be given to the admission or confession
7. the two quantum thresholds contained in MRE 304(c) are low; first, in order for a military judge to consider a piece of proffered independent evidence for corroboration purposes, that evidence merely needs to raise an inference of the truth of the admission or confession; second, in order for a military judge to conclude that the independent evidence corroborates an accused’s admission or confession, that evidence merely needs to tend to establish the trustworthiness of the admission or confession
8. in this case, the military judge did not err when he ruled that there were certain pieces of independent evidence that raised an inference of the truth of appellant’s admissions or confessions related to the sexual abuse of his stepdaughter; furthermore, the military judge did not abuse his discretion when he ruled that these pieces of independent evidence, when considered together, tended to establish the trustworthiness of appellant’s admissions or confessions and admitted appellant’s statements into evidence under MRE 304(c)

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision to admit a statement under MRE 304(c) for an abuse of discretion