U.S. v. Roan, 86 M.J. 159

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Due Process

1. the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Innocent Ingestion

1. the innocent ingestion defense does not require the defense to put on corroborating evidence; the very nature of an innocent ingestion defense means that the accused could not prove the time or place of his innocent ingestion but could only suggest possible explanations; the defense of innocent ingestion inherently requires raising doubt in the minds of members that the presence of the drug in the accused's system came from a knowing and wrongful use of the drug
2. in this case involving a charge of wrongful use of cocaine, to make an innocent ingestion claim, appellant was not required to show a link to himself and the pre-workout powder that contained a banned substance; he needed only point to it as a potential source to make a valid innocent ingestion claim, and, as such, provide a basis for the members to question whether to draw the inference that his drug use was wrongful

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Generally

1. the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution
2. favorable evidence under Brady includes evidence that, if disclosed and used effectively, may make the difference between conviction and acquittal
3. evidence is material within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Discovery

1. Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), establishes that the government must turn over any evidence in its possession that might cast doubt on an accused's guilt
2. establishing a Brady violation requires an appellant show: (1) that the evidence at issue was favorable, either because of its exculpatory nature or value as impeachment evidence, (2) that the favorable evidence was suppressed, either intentionally or inadvertently, by the government, and (3) the failure to disclose resulted in prejudice, i.e., the evidence was material
3. the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution
4. favorable evidence under Brady includes evidence that, if disclosed and used effectively, may make the difference between conviction and acquittal
5. evidence is material within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different
6. a showing of materiality under Brady does not require demonstration by a preponderance that the disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have resulted ultimately in the defendant's acquittal
7. a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different does not mean that the accused would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but only that the likelihood of a different result is great enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial
8. the duty to disclose Brady evidence is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused and that duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence
9. in evaluating materiality for Brady purposes, the question is not what was raised at trial, but what could have been raised had this information been disclosed; and all withheld evidence must be considered cumulatively
10. in this case where appellant was found guilty of wrongful use of cocaine, evidence withheld by the government, which included a pre-workout powder found in the common area of appellant's shared house that contained a banned substance that could cause a false positive for cocaine, was material under Brady; when viewed cumulatively, the withheld evidence denied appellant a potent defense strategy, the innocent ingestion defense; being able to argue this defense would have rebutted the permissive inference of knowing and wrongful use instruction given by the military judge
11. it is well accepted that a prosecutor's lack of knowledge does not render information unknown for Brady purposes; it is improper for a prosecutor's office to remain ignorant about certain aspects of a case or to compartmentalize information so that only investigating officers, and not the prosecutors themselves, would be aware of it; this prohibition against willful ignorance has special force in the military justice system, which mandates that an accused be afforded the equal opportunity to inspect evidence
12. in this case involving the wrongful use of cocaine, where the prosecutor remained willfully ignorant as to law enforcement's investigation into the pre-workout powder, the destruction of related case files, and the investigators' improper conduct, the loss or destruction of material Brady evidence was so critical to the defense as to make this criminal trial fundamentally unfair

Trial Stages: Appeals: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. the CAAF reviews discovery and disclosure process violations under a two step analysis: first, it must determine whether the information or evidence at issue was subject to disclosure or discovery; second, if there was nondisclosure of such information, it tests the effect of that nondisclosure on the appellant's trial

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

1. an appellate court reviews discovery and disclosure process violations under a two step analysis: first, it must determine whether the information or evidence at issue was subject to disclosure or discovery; second, if there was nondisclosure of such information, it tests the effect of that nondisclosure on the appellant's trial
2. establishing a Brady violation requires an appellant show: (1) that the evidence at issue was favorable, either because of its exculpatory nature or value as impeachment evidence, (2) that the favorable evidence was suppressed, either intentionally or inadvertently, by the government, and (3) the failure to disclose resulted in prejudice, i.e., the evidence was material