U.S. v. Pyron, 83 M.J. 59

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. a military judge’s ruling on admissibility of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion; in order to be overturned on appeal, a military judge’s ruling must be arbitrary, fanciful, clearly unreasonable or clearly erroneous or influenced by an erroneous view of the law
2. in this case, the military judge abused his discretion when he ruled that appellant’s prior testimony was not admissible at the upcoming trial where he made no finding that the government had engaged in illegal conduct at the earlier trial but instead referred to the government’s action as merely an error

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Generally

1. there is a general evidentiary rule that an accused’s who chooses to testify waives his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination with respect to the testimony he gives, and that waiver is no less effective or complete because the accused may have been motivated to take the witness stand in the first place only by reason of the strength of the lawful evidence adduced against him
2. an accused’s testimony at a prior trial is admissible at a subsequent trial unless (1) the government engaged in illegal conduct at the first trial, and (2) the government’s illegal conduct induced the accused’s prior testimony

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Hearsay › Generally

1. an accused’s testimony at a former trial is not hearsay if the statement is offered against an opposing party and was made by the party in an individual capacity

Trial Stages: Writs and Interlocutory Appeals: Article 62 Appeal

1. in an Article 62, UCMJ, appeal, an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision directly and reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the party which prevailed at trial

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

1. a military judge’s ruling on admissibility of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion; in order to be overturned on appeal, a military judge’s ruling must be arbitrary, fanciful, clearly unreasonable or clearly erroneous or influenced by an erroneous view of the law