U.S. v. Guihama, 85 M.J. 48

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. a three-part test details the procedures and standards that a military judge must follow when deciding whether an accused's admission or confession is sufficiently corroborated: (1) the military judge must decide whether the proffered evidence is in fact independent evidence, and independent evidence cannot consist of other uncorroborated confessions of the accused that would also require corroboration, but independent evidence can be either direct or circumstantial; (2) the military judge must decide whether each piece of independent evidence raises an inference of the truth of the admission or confession, and if the piece of evidence meets this threshold, the military judge can use it to determine whether the accused's statement is corroborated; and (3) the military judge must decide whether the pieces of evidence, considered together, corroborate the admission or confession of the accused, and in doing so, the military judge must assess whether the pieces of evidence would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the admission or confession
2. with regard to the second part of the corroboration test, the government does not face a weighty burden to show that each piece of independent evidence raises an inference of the truth of the admission or confession; the standard to raise an inference of a confession's truth is only marginally higher than the standard necessary to show that evidence is relevant
3. with regard to the second part of the corroboration test, evidence at this step must be more than just relevant; instead of just having a tendency to raise an inference of a confession's truth, it must actually raise an inference of its truth; in other words, not all evidence that meets the relevancy standard qualifies at this step

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. in this case, although the military judge abused her discretion with respect to her reliance on evidence of the children's lack of memory and appellant's emotional response while being questioned, she did not abuse her discretion with respect to her ultimate conclusion that sufficient independent evidence tended to establish the trustworthiness of appellant's statements as required by MRE 304(c)(1); independent evidence established that: (1) appellant had a niece and nephew whose ages at the time the alleged incidents took place were consistent with the ages that appellant provided to the FBI; (2) appellant visited his wife's family during the time frame that he said he committed the offenses; (3) records show that appellant was authorized to take leave at times where he lived close to his wife's family and could visit them; and (4) appellant's niece and nephew recalled watching movies with appellant in the living room of their home and then falling asleep; this evidence put appellant in the place that he claimed to have committed the crimes, with the children whom he claimed to have victimized, and shows that he had the opportunity to commit the crimes in the very specific way that he described; any minor discrepancies between the children's testimony and appellant's confessions did not change that appellant's family confirmed that he watched movies with his underage nieces and nephew while they fell asleep; taken together, the independent evidence meets the low corroboration standard because it tends to establish the trustworthiness of appellant's admissions

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

1. under MRE 304(c)(1), an admission or a confession of the accused may be considered as evidence against the accused on the question of guilt or innocence only if independent evidence, either direct or circumstantial, has been admitted into evidence that would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the admission or confession; the independent evidence necessary to establish corroboration need not be sufficient of itself to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of facts stated in the admission or confession; rather, the independent evidence need only raise an inference of the truth of the admission or confession
2. a three-part test details the procedures and standards that a military judge must follow when deciding whether an accused's admission or confession is sufficiently corroborated: (1) the military judge must decide whether the proffered evidence is in fact independent evidence, and independent evidence cannot consist of other uncorroborated confessions of the accused that would also require corroboration, but independent evidence can be either direct or circumstantial; (2) the military judge must decide whether each piece of independent evidence raises an inference of the truth of the admission or confession, and if the piece of evidence meets this threshold, the military judge can use it to determine whether the accused's statement is corroborated; and (3) the military judge must decide whether the pieces of evidence, considered together, corroborate the admission or confession of the accused, and in doing so, the military judge must assess whether the pieces of evidence would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the admission or confession
3. with regard to the second part of the corroboration test, the government does not face a weighty burden to show that each piece of independent evidence raises an inference of the truth of the admission or confession; the standard to raise an inference of a confession's truth is only marginally higher than the standard necessary to show that evidence is relevant
4. with regard to the second part of the corroboration test, evidence at this step must be more than just relevant; instead of just having a tendency to raise an inference of a confession's truth, it must actually raise an inference of its truth; in other words, not all evidence that meets the relevancy standard qualifies at this step
5. the quantum of evidence necessary to corroborate an accused's admissions or confession under MRE 304(c) remains slight
6. if an accused makes a timely motion or objection under MRE 304(a) to suppress a confession or admission, an involuntary statement will generally be inadmissible at trial
7. the voluntariness of a confession turns on whether an accused's will has been overborne; and in determining the voluntariness of a confession, an appellate court examines the totality of the surrounding circumstances by looking to both the personal characteristics of the accused as well as the circumstances of the interrogation
8. in this case, the evidence corroborative of appellant's confession proffered by the government that included statements obtained from AFOSI interviews with the named victims and appellant's in-laws, preliminary hearing testimony, and appellant's military records was in fact independent evidence because none of this evidence consisted of other uncorroborated confessions or admissions made by appellant that would themselves require corroboration
9. in this case, because independent evidence can be direct or circumstantial, appellant's emotional reaction to the FBI questioning was independent evidence that could bear on the sufficiency of corroboration
10. in this case, appellant's emotional response following the FBI's questions about sexually touching children did not raise an inference of the truth of his confession because it is susceptible to multiple explanations; although his response might have indicated consciousness of guilt, it just as easily could have indicated something else such as his realization of the gravity of his situation; accordingly, because appellant's reaction was not a reliable indication of consciousness of guilt, it did not raise an inference of the truth of appellant's admissions and the military judge erred in using that evidence to determine whether appellant's admissions were sufficiently corroborated
11. in this case, appellant's niece's and nephew's lack of any knowledge or memory of appellant's actions did not raise an inference of the truth of his admissions; because the children's statements would have been the same whether appellant's confession was true or false, they did not raise an inference of the truth of appellant's admissions; accordingly, the military judge erred in using that evidence to determine whether appellant's admissions were sufficiently corroborated
12. in this case, the remaining statements made by the named victims and appellant's in-laws, preliminary hearing testimony, and appellant's military records did allow an inference that appellant fondled his niece and nephew
13. corroborative evidence does not have to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance; independent evidence adequately corroborates a confession if it supports the essential facts admitted sufficiently to justify a jury inference of their truth; independent evidence need not be overwhelming to achieve corroboration, but it must only support the truthfulness or reliability of the confession; although no mathematical formula exists to measure sufficient corroboration, the amount of corroboration generally needed is not great and the amount needed in military courts may be very slight
14. in this case, although the military judge abused her discretion with respect to her reliance on evidence of the children's lack of memory and appellant's emotional response while being questioned, she did not abuse her discretion with respect to her ultimate conclusion that sufficient independent evidence tended to establish the trustworthiness of appellant's statements as required by MRE 304(c)(1); independent evidence established that: (1) appellant had a niece and nephew whose ages at the time the alleged incidents took place were consistent with the ages that appellant provided to the FBI; (2) appellant visited his wife's family during the time frame that he said he committed the offenses; (3) records show that appellant was authorized to take leave at times where he lived close to his wife's family and could visit them; and (4) appellant's niece and nephew recalled watching movies with appellant in the living room of their home and then falling asleep; this evidence put appellant in the place that he claimed to have committed the crimes, with the children whom he claimed to have victimized, and shows that he had the opportunity to commit the crimes in the very specific way that he described; any minor discrepancies between the children's testimony and appellant's confessions did not change that appellant's family confirmed that he watched movies with his underage nieces and nephew while they fell asleep; taken together, the independent evidence meets the low corroboration standard because it tends to establish the trustworthiness of appellant's admissions

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Relevance

1. only relevant evidence is admissible at courts-martial; to be relevant, evidence need only have any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the action; the relevance standard is a low threshold

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) requiring corroboration of a confession for an abuse of discretion
2. in determining the voluntariness of a confession, an appellate court examines the totality of the surrounding circumstances by looking to both the personal characteristics of the accused as well as the circumstances of the interrogation