U.S. v. Braum, 86 M.J. 472

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Due Process

1. in the military justice system, both the right to a trial that is fair, and the right to a trial that is objectively seen to be fair, have constitutional dimensions sounding in due process

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Discovery

1. there are two categories of disclosure error: (1) cases in which the defense either did not make a discovery request or made only a general request for discovery; and (2) cases in which the defense made a specific request for the undisclosed information

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

1. review for prejudice by the CAAF is de novo
2. for cases of disclosure error in which the defense made a specific request of undisclosed information, the CAAF applies the heightened constitutional harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard
3. the prejudice determination by the CAAF under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard is based on the entire record

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. for cases of disclosure error in which the defense made a specific request of undisclosed information, the CAAF applies the heightened constitutional harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard
2. under the heightened constitutional harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, the government has the burden to show that any error made was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
3. harmless beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard, but it is not an impossible standard for the government to meet
4. the failure to disclose requested material favorable to the defense is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the undisclosed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial
5. the prejudice determination by the CAAF under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard is based on the entire record
6. in this case, any error arising from the government's refusal to provide appellant with the full extraction on the contents of the victim's phone because the victim only consented to the extraction of location-related data from her phone was harmless considering that the defense already had the evidence that was likely to be found on the phone that would be helpful to them in the form of the pictures and text messages; thus, the evidence appellant sought was cumulative and would have only reinforced what the members already knew; in other words, a full extraction would merely be cumulative of other impeachment evidence - substantial in volume and weight - already available to the defense
7. although impeachment evidence or evidence otherwise undermining the credibility of a government's key witness is more likely to be material than that related to other witnesses, the evaluation of whether potential evidence might have affected the trial outcome must be based on the entire record and not merely assumed; and in this case, when considered in the context of the entire record, the marginal effect of additional impeachment or evidence merely reinforcing other evidence already presented by the defense was relatively small and unlikely to have affected the outcome of trial

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

1. review for prejudice by the CAAF is de novo
2. for cases of disclosure error in which the defense made a specific request of undisclosed information, the CAAF applies the heightened constitutional harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard
3. under the heightened constitutional harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, the government has the burden to show that any error made was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
4. harmless beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard, but it is not an impossible standard for the government to meet
5. the failure to disclose requested material favorable to the defense is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the undisclosed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial
6. the prejudice determination by the CAAF under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard is based on the entire record