- there is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, and for a waiver to be effective it must be clearly established that there was an intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege
CAAF Opinion Digest · III.E.4 · Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences
Appellate Presumptions, Inferences
26 digested opinions, 2000–2025 Terms
2025 (October Term)
2024 (October Term)
- there is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, and for a waiver to be effective it must be clearly established that there was an intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege; for these reasons, when an appellant alleges for the first time on appeal that his conviction was unconstitutional as applied to him, the CAAF generally declines to find waiver and instead applies plain error review; under such review, the appellant bears the burden of pointing to particular facts in the record that prove why his interests should overcome the determinations of Congress and the President that his conduct should be proscribed
2023 (October Term)
- a military judge is presumed to know the law and apply it correctly, absent clear evidence to the contrary
- the presumption that the military judge knows and follows the law is only as valid as the law itself
- there is a strong presumption that a judge is impartial, and a party seeking to demonstrate bias must overcome a high hurdle, particularly when the alleged bias involves actions taken in conjunction with judicial proceedings
- to prove judicial bias, a party must overcome a high hurdle because there exists a strong presumption that a judge is impartial
- when interpreting legislation, an appellate court has long presumed two things: that Congress knows the law, and that Congress selected the language that it intended to apply
2021 (October Term)
- an appellate court presumes that members follow a military judge’s instructions absent evidence to the contrary
2019 (October Term)
- to prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, an appellant bears the burden of proving that the performance of his defense counsel was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the error; judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential, and an appellate court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; to overcome the presumption, an appellant must show specific defects in counsel’s performance that were unreasonable under prevailing professional norms
- absent evidence to the contrary, a jury is presumed to have complied with the judge’s instructions
2018 (October Term)
- an appellate court presumes that the panel followed the instructions given by the military judge
2014 (September Term)
- while members are not presumed to be suited to make legal determinations of constitutional law, they are presumed to be competent to make factual determinations as to guilt; when jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory, there is no reason to think that their own intelligence and expertise will save them from that error; the opposite is true, however, when they have been left the option of relying upon a factually inadequate theory, because jurors are well equipped to analyze the evidence; moreover, in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise, a jury is presumed to have complied with the instructions given them by the judge
2013 (September Term)
- a waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege; there is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, although no magic words are required to establish a waiver; the determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case
2010 (September Term)
- there is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, and for a waiver to be effective it must be clearly established that there was an intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege
2008 (September Term)
- members are presumed to follow a military judge’s instructions to consider evidence for a proper purpose, such as bias or motive to misrepresent, and not let personal beliefs or feelings affect their determinations about witness credibility
2008 (Transition Term)
- there is a strong presumption that an error is not structural
- as the sentencing authority, a military judge is presumed to know the law and apply it correctly absent clear evidence to the contrary
- there is a strong presumption that an error is not structural
- an accused is presumed to be sane and counsel is presumed to be competent
- substantial omissions from the record of trial create a presumption of prejudice that may be rebutted by the government
2007
- military judges are presumed to know the law and to follow it absent clear evidence to the contrary; as part of this presumption, military judges are presumed to be able to distinguish between proper and improper sentencing arguments
- court members are presumed to follow the military judge’s instructions
- the judges of the courts of criminal appeals, as senior judge advocates, are presumed to know and correctly apply the law; the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will impute no intent to engage in fundamental unfairness or rely upon off-limits tactics to the courts of criminal appeals
- in reviewing a case for legal sufficiency, an appellate court is bound to draw every reasonable inference from the evidence of record in favor of the prosecution
2002
- a panel is presumed to understand and follow the instructions of the military judge absent competent evidence to the contrary
- court members are presumed to follow the military judge’s instructions
2000
- absent evidence to the contrary, Court of Appeals may presume that members follow a military judge’s instructions
- court members are presumed to follow the military judge’s instructions
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IIIE4 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).