U.S. v. Quezada, 82 M.J. 54

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. military judges must give the members appropriate instructions before they deliberate on findings
2. with respect to a false exculpatory statements instruction, a military judge does not have a duty to identify the specific statement or statements that the members might find false; on the contrary, doing so might improperly influence the panel members by placing special weight on some evidence as opposed to other evidence; furthermore, a military judge does not have a duty to instruct the members that a false statement has any probative value other than that it is false

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Generally

1. if evidence is relevant to more than one offense, the court-martial may consider that evidence with respect to each offense to which it is relevant
2. a false exculpatory statement may provide relevant circumstantial evidence, namely, evidence of a consciousness of guilt
3. consciousness of guilt evidence is different from propensity evidence; consciousness of guilt evidence is an acceptable form of circumstantial evidence used to show awareness of an accused that he or she has engaged in blameworthy conduct
4. propensity evidence is a generally impermissible form of character evidence in which members prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Character

1. propensity evidence is a generally impermissible form of character evidence in which members prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Instructions on

1. the standard false exculpatory statements instruction informs the members that if the accused makes a statement tending to establish his or her innocence, and the statement is later shown to be false, the members may consider whether this circumstantial evidence points to consciousness of guilt
2. the false exculpatory statements instruction announces a correct principle of law
3. the false exculpatory statements instruction is not appropriate for general denials of criminal wrongdoing because in order to decide that an accused’s general denial of illegal activity is false, the factfinder must decide the very issue of guilt or innocence, and so the instruction would only tend to produce confusion because of its circularity
4. with respect to a false exculpatory statements instruction, a military judge does not have a duty to identify the specific statement or statements that the members might find false; on the contrary, doing so might improperly influence the panel members by placing special weight on some evidence as opposed to other evidence; furthermore, a military judge does not have a duty to instruct the members that a false statement has any probative value other than that it is false
5. in this case, the false exculpatory statements instruction did not violate appellant’s constitutional presumption of innocence where he was charged both with committing a substantive offense and with making a false official statement relating to that offense because (1) appellant did not make a general denial of criminal wrongdoing, but rather, he denied specific conduct, and the falsity of this denial did not determine the ultimate question of whether appellant was guilty of the substantive offense, and the military judge’s instruction did not identify any particular statement the members could consider to be a false explanation, (2) the military judge did not provide the members with any conflicting burdens of proof with regards to charged misconduct, but rather, only instructed on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) the military judge gave a spillover instruction absent any reference to propensity

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Burdens, Standards, Etc. › Presumptions

1. an appellate court presumes that members follow a military judge’s instructions absent evidence to the contrary

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Presumptions, Inferences

1. an appellate court presumes that members follow a military judge’s instructions absent evidence to the contrary

Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Generally

1. military judges must give the members appropriate instructions before they deliberate on findings
2. the standard false exculpatory statements instruction informs the members that if the accused makes a statement tending to establish his or her innocence, and the statement is later shown to be false, the members may consider whether this circumstantial evidence points to consciousness of guilt
3. the false exculpatory statements instruction announces a correct principle of law
4. the false exculpatory statements instruction is not appropriate for general denials of criminal wrongdoing because in order to decide that an accused’s general denial of illegal activity is false, the factfinder must decide the very issue of guilt or innocence, and so the instruction would only tend to produce confusion because of its circularity
5. with respect to a false exculpatory statements instruction, a military judge does not have a duty to identify the specific statement or statements that the members might find false; on the contrary, doing so might improperly influence the panel members by placing special weight on some evidence as opposed to other evidence; furthermore, a military judge does not have a duty to instruct the members that a false statement has any probative value other than that it is false
6. in this case, the false exculpatory statements instruction did not violate appellant’s constitutional presumption of innocence where he was charged both with committing a substantive offense and with making a false official statement relating to that offense because (1) appellant did not make a general denial of criminal wrongdoing, but rather, he denied specific conduct, and the falsity of this denial did not determine the ultimate question of whether appellant was guilty of the substantive offense, and the military judge’s instruction did not identify any particular statement the members could consider to be a false explanation, (2) the military judge did not provide the members with any conflicting burdens of proof with regards to charged misconduct, but rather, only instructed on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) the military judge gave a spillover instruction absent any reference to propensity

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. an appellate court reviews objections to instructions preserved at trial directly, but reviews objections not raised only for plain error

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

1. whether a court-martial panel was properly instructed is a question of law reviewed by an appellate court de novo
2. an appellate court reviews objections to instructions preserved at trial directly, but reviews objections not raised only for plain error
3. an appellate court presumes that members follow a military judge’s instructions absent evidence to the contrary