Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Weird issue

Here's the granted issue in United States v. Martinez, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0028/MC (June 7, 2007):

IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT A MILITARY JUDGE IS PRESUMED TO KNOW AND APPLY THE LAW CORRECTLY, IN A CASE IN WHICH THE JUDGE SITTING ALONE, EVALUATED THE APPELLANT'S CREDIBILITY BASED UPON TWO SPECIFICATIONS LATER DISMISSED ON APPEAL, DID THAT DISMISSAL CREATE IMPROPER SPILLOVER IN THE JUDGE'S CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE APPELLANT'S TESTIMONY AS TO THE REMAINING OFFENSES?

NMCCA's opinion, which is on Navy Knowledge Online, kicked the two marijuana use specs mentioned above because the ROT failed to include the transcript of a motion hearing dealing with the defense's entitlement to expert witness testimony. United States v. Martinez, No. NMCCA 200301483 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 9, 2006) (per curiam).

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Could be the silliest grant of all time. If the military judge is presumed to know the law, then there is no risk of spillover. Is the appellate defense counsel supposed to obtain an affidavit from the military judge in which he states that in this particular case, he didn't follow the law? I don't get it.

Sacramentum said...

Although the grant may be silly to us, past history suggests the court only takes silly issues when they are prepared to find them serious.

egn said...

I agree that the issue does not appear to make for a very compelling appeal. The judge could have legitimately considered the evidence of Martinez's two marijuana uses, to negate any claim of mistake or accident, under M.R.E. 404(b). The misconduct need not have resulted in a conviction for it to be considered by the court.

So assuming the judge appropriately considered that evidence pre-conviction (and there is no indication from the lower court's opinion that he didn't), why should the subsequent conviction and dismissal-upon-appeal change the 404(b) analysis?