U.S. v. Jones, 85 M.J. 80

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Credibility

1. inconsistencies are not uncommon when child abuse victims testify, and any person who suffers from some type of traumatic experience, adult or child, may have difficulty relating that experience in a chronological, coherent and organized manner

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Prior Inconsistent Statements

1. inconsistencies are not uncommon when child abuse victims testify, and any person who suffers from some type of traumatic experience, adult or child, may have difficulty relating that experience in a chronological, coherent and organized manner

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Witnesses: Child Witness

1. inconsistencies are not uncommon when child abuse victims testify, and any person who suffers from some type of traumatic experience, adult or child, may have difficulty relating that experience in a chronological, coherent and organized manner

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

1. the government that bears the burden of demonstrating that the admission of erroneous evidence was harmless

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. under Article 59(a), UCMJ, a finding or sentence may be held incorrect as a matter of law only if the error materially prejudiced a substantial right of the accused
2. the government that bears the burden of demonstrating that the admission of erroneous evidence was harmless
3. for nonconstitutional evidentiary errors, the test for prejudice is whether the error had a substantial influence on the findings
4. in conducting a prejudice analysis for a nonconstitutional evidentiary error, an appellate court weighs: (1) the strength of the government's case, (2) the strength of the defense case, (3) the materiality of the evidence in question, and (4) the quality of the evidence in question; and in examining the final two factors of the prejudice analysis, the court essentially assesses how much the erroneously admitted evidence may have affected the court-martial
5. when a fact was already obvious from testimony at trial and the evidence in question would not have provided any new ammunition, the erroneous admission of the evidence is likely to be harmless
6. in this case, even assuming that the military judge abused her discretion in admitting appellant's post-incident browser history, the error did not materially prejudice Appellant's substantial rights and did not substantially influence the findings or sentence where (1) the government presented a strong case, consisting primarily of the victim's testimony, eyewitness testimony, and appellant's videotaped admissions, (2) the defense case was comparatively weak, relying on crossing-examining the victim about alleged inconsistencies between her trial testimony and previous statements, but failing to succeed in impeaching her trial testimony, (3) appellant's post-incident internet browser history did not play a major role in the government's case, and (4) appellant's post-incident browser history did not provide the factfinder with any new information

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

1. under Article 59(a), UCMJ, a finding or sentence may be held incorrect as a matter of law only if the error materially prejudiced a substantial right of the accused
2. the government that bears the burden of demonstrating that the admission of erroneous evidence was harmless
3. for nonconstitutional evidentiary errors, the test for prejudice is whether the error had a substantial influence on the findings
4. in conducting a prejudice analysis for a nonconstitutional evidentiary error, an appellate court weighs: (1) the strength of the government's case, (2) the strength of the defense case, (3) the materiality of the evidence in question, and (4) the quality of the evidence in question; and in examining the final two factors of the prejudice analysis, the court essentially assesses how much the erroneously admitted evidence may have affected the court-martial